Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site