Skip to main content

View Diary: End of the Internet As We Know It! (48 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  I've not commented on the Net Neutrality issue (5+ / 0-)

      mostly because I did not want to be castigated.

      I've been a Network Architect for more than a quarter century.

      Thank you for this diary. The "Reality Based Community" needed a little reality thrown in wiht the hysteria.

      Gibbs is right about the professional left.

      by Walt starr on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:21:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm this close -> || from calling you a shill. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      murphthesurf

      Please tell me why I shouldn't.

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      -Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 06:41:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What if he is a shill for Reality? (0+ / 0-)

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:13:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you actually know ANYTHING on this subject? (0+ / 0-)

          Or do you like the idea of ISP's being able to block or degrade dKos on a whim?  Even if you're paid for their service, unless you "PAY EXTRA."

          Think about it.  The Robber Barons did this kind of thing all the time.  It's not like we don't have history on our side.

          Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
          I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
          -Spike Milligan

          by polecat on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:16:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  non-techie here, but (0+ / 0-)

            I have been on the commercial Internet since the early 90s, starting with a 990 (or whatever) dial-up modem, so I can understand a bit about having to pay extra in terms of equipment and service.

            However, your analogy here is a bit off if you are trying to make a point. Just last night I logged into dKos and read a mini-scold about how ad-blocking on my part blocks revenue to the site, and if I paid "a little extra" to subscribe I wouldn't have the ad problems which tend to crash my computer.

            So to carry through to your analogy, are you saying Kos is a Robber Baron? Believe me, I don't.

            You go to war with the TROLLS you have, not the TROLLS you might want or wish to have at a later time.

            by klompendanser on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:26:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There is a difference between being (0+ / 0-)

              the service provider (Kos), the end user (you), and the carrier in the middle.

              Net Neutrality is about the carrier in the middle.

              I imagine that turning off your television set would inconvenience advertisers, too.  Or pressing the mute button during a commercial.  But that isn't the issue.

              The issue is the carrier that "degrades" or "blocks" MSNBC unless you pay extra for it.  Or Skype.  Or Google.

              Look up Vanderbilt sometime.

              Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
              I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
              -Spike Milligan

              by polecat on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:31:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I know rather a lot about old Cornelius. (0+ / 0-)

                and James J. Hill. I had a gr-grandfather who was a farmer who had definite opinions on robber barons and socialism to fight them.

                The internet seems to me to be a different issue entirely. Net neutrality to me gets at whether or not there is service available in all areas, including remote rural areas. We don't have that yet, and I really don't give a rat's patoot whether it is wired or wireless that gets those areas access, as long as they get access.

                It seems to me that a lot of the issues that are being described here as "issues" in net neutrality are of the do you want instant coffee or a double-shot caramel mocchiato. Rather than do you have running water in your house yet. That's why I said your analogy about robber barons.

                Although another way to describe it would be the way one philosophy professor described as the wrong question people -- those who ask "whether it is colder in winter or in China." To me the whole debate is the "wrong question."

                I'll leave it at that.

                Have a great day!

                You go to war with the TROLLS you have, not the TROLLS you might want or wish to have at a later time.

                by klompendanser on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:45:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So "Be thankful you've got ANYTHING" trumps (0+ / 0-)

                  resource ownership, eh?

                  As someone who lives downwind of the TVA, I take issue with that approach.

                  Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
                  I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
                  -Spike Milligan

                  by polecat on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:05:33 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  no, get the running (0+ / 0-)

                    water first (ie the Internet), worry about embellishments later, is not the same thing as "be thankful you got anything." I'm in my 50s, fourth of five children, and am the first of my siblings to take indoor plumbing for granted, so I know that angle of argument pretty well...it was made to me frequently whenever I expressed a wish for a "better" whatever.

                    My point was that the embellishments of technology of the internet is irrelevant when you don't have it at all. You argue from a different side of the question. Who is right, who is to say.

                    Hope your day was great; it's boiling hot and humid here, the rains we've had this week caused flash flooding in the streets, and tempers around me are short.

                    You go to war with the TROLLS you have, not the TROLLS you might want or wish to have at a later time.

                    by klompendanser on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 02:43:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Actually I do know about the subject (0+ / 0-)

            I have worked on developing Internet Protocols through the Internet Engineering Task Force - these protocols are used by most every Internet connected device.  I go back to ARPANET in the 1970s - the precursor to today's Internet and I have seen the Internet's evolution over 30 years up close. I have no economic interests with any carriers, equipment companies or Internet companies other than being a customer.

            Some who advocate "Net Neutrality" are unaware of how Net Neutrality hinders some critical areas of innovation that are important in telepresense (so people use a very high quality video conference instead of burning jet fuel traveling - for a much smaller carbon footprint), healthcare (in imaging, medical records, remote diagnostics and control, etc.), Cloud computing (which help small companies compete against the largest companies, etc) , and new applications that will enable higher employment and higher wages, etc.

            Some applications need a network that is very responsive and reliable with very short latency times. Blocking the ability for Internet carriers to offer higher Quality of Service (QoS) as a premium service (ie, paying more) says only the largest companies who can afford to build their own private global network will be able to have these capabilities.  Net Neutrality is the Internet equivalent of saying you can only fly by jet if you own your own Boeing 747, and airlines cannot exist but you can travel by car.  The US Post Office is a common carrier but I can send items 3rd class bulk, first class or express at very different prices with different levels of service.  It is more common than not for common carriers to have different pricing for different levels of service.

            Pricing for Internet Access already varies on usage by raw bandwidth and how many GBs of data one moves per month.  I pay more to get 50 Mb/s of bandwidth instead of 25 MB/s service, I am also limited to 250 GB per month - even though 50 Mb/s can move more than 40 times than amount per month. Using more than the 250 GB/mo costs more for personal or commercial use.  BTW, bandwidth continues to rapidly decline in price - today I pay 2% today of what I paid 15 years ago for 50 times more bandwidth -- an improvement in price/performance of 250,000%.

            The issue here is allowing those with applications that require better QoS to pay extra for it, as opposed to requiring those who need these applications to build private networks with limited access or do without.

            As long as a carrier treats all traffic for a given QoS level (which will vary by application and paid rates) the same regardless of origin or destination, the carrier should only treat that traffic differently if the traffic was causing network management problems. Hopefully you don't object to carriers taking actions against "denial of service attacks."

            The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

            by nextstep on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:23:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Didn't you just post this in another diary? (0+ / 0-)

              link

              You're talking about bifurcating the current internet into two groups to provide the equivalent of the "Internet II" proposal for the "haves" and the equivalent of a dirt road for the "have nots."

              If you needs a Real-Time service, why not actually BUILD A REAL-TIME SERVICE instead of using it as an excuse for a resource grab?

              With roads, you have the following choices:

              1. public roads, for which you've paid a registration fee for your vehicle
              1. HOV lanes, specified by Governmental Agencies for whatever purpose they've outlined
              1. Emergency vehicle access -- the equivalent of permitting 911 calls through with higher priority
              1. Toll roads that were built with outside funds and require paying an extra fee to use them.

              You do not have an autobahn where people who pay a boatload of cash get to use any lane at 150 mph, leaving all of the rest of us in the dust at 25 mph.

              If you want an Internet II (case #4, above), then by all means, BUILD ONE.  But otherwise this can be badly misused.  And when there are toll roads, there are alternatives that are cheaper and pre-existing.  You do NOT have cases where things that were previously #1 get changed to be #4 because someone declares that they ought to have priority.

              Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
              I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
              -Spike Milligan

              by polecat on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 08:56:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Do you object that those who buy a Broadband (0+ / 0-)

                Internet service have higher bandwidth than those who buy less expensive dial-up service?

                How is that not a "have and have not" situation as well?

                The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                by nextstep on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 09:22:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I object to paying extra beyond that to access (0+ / 0-)

                  a service on the internet, once I've paid for my "access."

                  And that is what you propose.

                  Or having to pay extra to make my netflix load in the next hour instead of sometime in the next month.

                  Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
                  I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
                  -Spike Milligan

                  by polecat on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 09:32:10 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  QoS differences are measured in Milliseconds (0+ / 0-)

                    Unless you are actually running an application that requires high QoS, you are unlikely to have a difference that can be perceived by a human.

                    Do you have any actual experience using large networks where QoS is used?

                    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                    by nextstep on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 09:49:18 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Do you know diddly about "traffic shaping?" (0+ / 0-)

                      Don't even get into "perceived by a human" arguments.

                      I've got vonage and can categorically state that latency is a b*tch.

                      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
                      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
                      -Spike Milligan

                      by polecat on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 11:30:41 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  VOIP quality would be helped with QoS (0+ / 0-)

                        QoS will help make VOIP and video conferencing much better.

                        I don't see a for dKos to compete with slashdot in regards to "traffic shaping."

                        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                        by nextstep on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 12:08:17 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  The analogy of public roads is not very good. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jrooth

                Sorry, but its use reminds me of those who spoke of "tubes" when talking about the Internet.

                Using your analogy anyway, paying varies on public roads for different use:

                Note that on public roads those with 18-wheeler trucks also pay a premium based on usage as well as pay higher registration fees.  

                In NYC (and possibly other cities), all ways of entering Manhattan have very high tolls so a premium is charged to use the roads of Manhattan with rates varying by the type of vehicle.

                Money is collected from gasoline taxes from vehicles with lower gas mileage at a faster rate for using public roads.

                To better manage public roads where capacity is an issue there is also congestion pricing (see, London, Stockholm and some discussion about doing this in NYC) where the price to go past certain points varies with the time of day.

                The issue of some cars traveling 150 mph while others travel at 25 mph is not done for reasons of safety.  The Internet issue is to reduce the latency times of networks for applications that need this, which is not the same thing as being a real-time criteria.

                Let me assure you, those who pay for higher QoS will not have their electrons and photons traveling any faster than anyone else - I promise you they will be the same.

                The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                by nextstep on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 09:44:07 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Actually photons travel on cladded optical fiber (0+ / 0-)

                  a great deal faster than electrons do in copper.

                  Again, you're preaching to someone who knows about the technology, HAVING F*ING WORKED ON IT, most likely more than you do.

                  Latency WILL get worse if you permit traffic shaping.  If you permit the higher speed/higher quality/higher bandwidth traffic, somebody is going to take the hit.  Meaning that your theoretical 50Mb/sec datarate will only be that in very specific cases, that a lot of your data will be slowed down to make way for the privileged users/providers.

                  Finally, you're talking about GOVERNMENTAL decisions being made, for the common good, rather than CORPORATE decisions being made for their own good.

                  You're just trying to talk past me and filibuster with quantity, and the sad part is, I've been in this field a long time, too.

                  I cry "bullsh*t."

                  Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
                  I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
                  -Spike Milligan

                  by polecat on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 11:29:24 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You assume that with (0+ / 0-)

                    higher revenues, carriers will not upgrade more rapidly so mainstream apps continue to perform well if not better.

                    You are also assuming that packets with QoS are a high fraction of the total traffic.  

                    I think on matters of regulation of carriers it is better to restrain the bad behavior when it starts presenting itself, rather than regulate everything that one might think of and in the process limit technology advances.

                    In regards to photons and electrons I did not comment which travels faster, just a joke that QoS will not change their speeds for those with higher QoS.

                    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                    by nextstep on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 01:09:40 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Could you please tell me why net neutrality as (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jrooth

            I have defined it won't stop that? Which simply is that network data of a the same type can't be discriminated upon based on source or destination. DKos is a certain source IP addr that is sending text from port 80 to my Firefox browser at a certain destination IP addr. The Fox News website is another source IP addr that is sending text from port 80 to your IE browser at a different destination IP addr. As long as no one is allowed to prioritize one of these exchanges over the other, we have network neutrality. When we start demanding that the Internet treat text and video the same we just show that we don't know what we are talking about.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site