Re: corporate victory in net neutrality
El Castor
wrote:
>
>Proprietors Win, Again
>
>(http://open.salon.com//blog/steven_axelrod/2010/12/21/proprietors_win_again)
>
>The internet as we know it is officially doomed, as of today,
>and I`m already feeling nostalgic. Funny that a technology
>could move so fast across the landscape of my life - from a
>geeks-only fluke to a curiosity, to a useful tool, to a powerful
>engine of -
>
>Steven Axelrod (http://open.salon.com//blog/steven_axelrod)
Net Neutrality is a very complicated issue with good arguments on both
sides. Axelrod is a loon.
GlennR
"El Castor" <ElPolo...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:2b75h6t36k5i29icm...@4ax.com...
LMAO,
the castor, ignorant and stupid hillbilly is described below by Axelrod :
It's relatively easy to convince an ignorant rabble that government is bad
and taxes are worse, that health care is evil and the gilded age for the
wealthiest stock manipulators and hedge fund Sun Kings (more despicable
than any top-hatted grotesque in a Communist propaganda cartoon) should
proceed without a hitch. That billionaires like the Koch brothers are behind
this bogus 'grass roots' movement should surprise no one. Instead, step back
with grudging respect and admire their audacity. How to get poor people who
can't afford a doctor's visit to cut taxes for millionaires and deny
themselves any kind of proper health care, education or secure employment?
Use their own prejudices, leverage their fear, manipulate their anger. "Get
the government's dirty hands off my Medicare!" What a perfect delicious,
sublime sentiment with which to inoculate a population through the IV drip
of a thousand blaring radio and television propaganda shows, a million
campaign ads.
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
>
>Proprietors Win, Again
>
>(http://open.salon.com//blog/steven_axelrod/2010/12/21/proprietors_win_again)
>
>The internet as we know it is officially doomed, as of today,
>and I`m already feeling nostalgic. Funny that a technology
>could move so fast across the landscape of my life - from a
>geeks-only fluke to a curiosity, to a useful tool, to a powerful
>engine of -
>
>Steven Axelrod (http://open.salon.com//blog/steven_axelrod)
Another damned leftist complaining about being
rightly and properly under the firm thumb of the
natural masters of capitalism.
Why do we allow these people their freedom?
Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
mg
>
> The internet as we know it is officially doomed, as of today,
> and I`m already feeling nostalgic. Funny that a technology
> could move so fast across the landscape of my life - from a
> geeks-only fluke to a curiosity, to a useful tool, to a powerful
> engine of -
>
> Steven Axelrod (http://open.salon.com//blog/steven_axelrod)
> Mussolini's definition of fascism: "the moment when you couldn't
> put a cigarette paper between political and corporate power."
>
> "to email me, delete blackhole from my return address
I don't know a lot about the "network neutrality" issue, but here are
some things to think about:
1. Al Gore once warned the country about "toll booths on the
information superhighway".
2. We live in a capitalistic system. So it shouldn't be any great
surprise if internet providers are staying awake nights trying to
figure out ways to monitize the internet and minimize competition.
3. Some of the organizations opposing network neutrality are the Cato
Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Goldwater
Institute and Americans for Tax Reform.
4. We currently have a right-wing Supreme Court and the people
opposing network neutrality have a lot of money just as the health-
care insurance industry has a lot of money, for instance, and Big Oil,
has a lot of money, for instance, and the Military/Industrial Complex
has a lot of money, for instance; money that can be used to buy off
politicians.
El Castor
wrote:
Net neutrality is a whole slew of issues. Should a guy who uses 500
gigs of bandwidth a month downloading movies pay the same as someone
who uses 1 gig posting to Usenet and downloading email? If Netfix uses
20% of internet bandwidth during peak hours, thereby compelling
Comcast to spend millions to beef up it's infrastructure, who should
get stuck with the bill? If network TV and cable TV are diverted to
the Internet, in effect killing conventional TV, what is the business
model that pays for this new delivery mechanism? Can ABC, CBS, and the
History Channel make enough money to finance their programming in this
new environment, and once again, who picks up the bill? These are not
black and white issues that can be broken down to some political
principle.
mg
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 08:13:16 -0800 (PST), mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>
For the basic subscription price, my internet provider has a limit of
5000 MB/month for the web and 250MB for email. If I wanted to go over
that amount, I would have to pay more. Back in the days when I had
DSL, my limit was about 12 GB/month, I think. There is obviously
nothing in current law that prohibits an ISP from charging based on
usage.
Glenn
I hate to agree with Sid and argue against mg but I believe a regulatory
commission should set the rates for all users. All the utilities have
gone this route and it's only fair that the perceived communication
burden be equal for me as well as Magic Jack, Charter and ATT users. I
would be dishonest if I didn't say that in all probability my burden
would be almost zero.
--
Glenn
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
Appropriately enough, there's a historian on TV right now
talking about the reasons for the American revolution. He
started out that just a few years before the American
colonists had been proud to be British subjects. Then he
talked about some dude named "Preston" who was asked
why he fought. Was it the tax on tea? No, I never drink
tea. Was it the works of great thinkers such as Locke?
No, I never heard of him. The only things I read are the
bible and the almanac. What was it that prompted you to
fight then? Well, we had always governed ourselves here
in the colonies, and now the British government didn't feel
we should.
Rumpelstiltskin
>> Net neutrality is a whole slew of issues. Should a guy who uses 500
>> gigs of bandwidth a month downloading movies pay the same as someone
>> who uses 1 gig posting to Usenet and downloading email? If Netfix uses
>> 20% of internet bandwidth during peak hours, thereby compelling
>> Comcast to spend millions to beef up it's infrastructure, who should
>> get stuck with the bill? If network TV and cable TV are diverted to
>> the Internet, in effect killing conventional TV, what is the business
>> model that pays for this new delivery mechanism? Can ABC, CBS, and the
>> History Channel make enough money to finance their programming in this
>> new environment, and once again, who picks up the bill? These are not
>> black and white issues that can be broken down to some political
>> principle.
>
>For the basic subscription price, my internet provider has a limit of
>5000 MB/month for the web and 250MB for email. If I wanted to go over
>that amount, I would have to pay more. Back in the days when I had
>DSL, my limit was about 12 GB/month, I think. There is obviously
>nothing in current law that prohibits an ISP from charging based on
>usage.
Yet another dishonest argument from El Castor.
Glenn
utilities. If you feel that to be dishonest, then I suspect I'm
subsidizing your phone bill.
--
Glenn
Rumpelstiltskin
It's far more probable that I'm subsidizing yours.
As MG noted, there's nothing in the current law
that prevents companies from charging per usage.
Making swaths of things simply unavailable is,
however, carving pieces out of a field that was
generally available in order to create a monopoly.
El Castor
wrote:
>On Dec 24, 11:22 am, El Castor <ElPoloGra...@nowhere.net> wrote:
Yes, but it all comes under a big umbrella of net neutrality. We have
a Roku box, same as Rita just got, and we stream HiDef Netflix, and
other Internet to our living room TV, and our usage is running about
50 Gigs a month. Comcast is in the TV business, as well as the
Internet, and some people are beginning to get all their TV over the
Internet, and discontinue the TV service. This scares Comcast, and
well it should. Maybe they would like to cap my Internet service, the
way your provider does? They could charge me extra for streaming
video. That might make up for the lost TV business. You may not
realize it, but assuming you have enough bandwidth, you can't stream
Netflix because your ISP has capped your service. So Comcast charging
me to stream video, or your ISP charging you for bandwidth usage comes
down to the same thing. Then there are content providers with an axe
to grind, and other players we've never heard of. Like ...
"Level 3 Goes To FCC Over Fight With Comcast"
http://techland.time.com/2010/12/21/level-3-goes-to-fcc-over-fight-with-comcast/#ixzz194Jn2S4H
All very complicated -- not just Big Cable trying to screw the little
guy. It's Big Cable, Big Networks, and a bunch of others trying to
survive. Very little in life is free.
Well, it's Christmas Eve, and the wife has other plans for me ...
Glenn
All I use the cable for is this newsgroup, program updates, local maps
and checking restaurant's menus. No telephone, no TV or streaming of
anything, not even games. As I recall from the illegal music downloads
many of you rationalized, the probabilities are all on my side.
>
> As MG noted, there's nothing in the current law
> that prevents companies from charging per usage.
> Making swaths of things simply unavailable is,
> however, carving pieces out of a field that was
> generally available in order to create a monopoly.
>
I'll be more than happy to pay less for usage.
--
Glenn
Rumpelstiltskin
>On 12/24/2010 10:55 PM, Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 14:11:26 -0600, Glenn<min...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Sid is making the same argument as those that argue for regulation of
>>> utilities. If you feel that to be dishonest, then I suspect I'm
>>> subsidizing your phone bill.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's far more probable that I'm subsidizing yours.
>
>All I use the cable for is this newsgroup, program updates, local maps
>and checking restaurant's menus. No telephone, no TV or streaming of
>anything, not even games. As I recall from the illegal music downloads
>many of you rationalized, the probabilities are all on my side.
Then how could you be subsidizing my phone bill?
mg
This is one of those things, that to be honest, I don't want to spend
a lot of time researching. Perhaps I should. In fact, I'm sure
everyone should or we could all wind up getting screwed and never know
exactly what happened.
Anyway, my first take is that this doesn't really have much of
anything to do with what your ISP charges you. Suppose, for example,
that some guy in Russia has a nice little freeware utility that he
provides for free on the internet, but he enjoys a significant
supplement to his income from voluntary contributions. So you attempt
to download it and get a message from your ISP which, when
interpretted correctly, means this guy is not paying your ISP any
money, so they don't allow downloading from that site, or they only
allow downloading from that site on a low priority basis, or after
midnight, etc.
mg
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEm...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 08:13:16 -0800 (PST), mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>
Right now the internet is pretty democratic. I don't know anything
about facebook, for example, but obviously anybody in world with a
computer and an internet connection can get his picture and his story
on the internet and anybody else in the world with the right equipment
can read it and exchange ideas and information with him. If I'm in the
internet or ISP business where's my profit in that? It's true that I
am making money from my subscribers, but I want more. Facebook is a
multi-billion dollar corporation, why shouldn't I get some of that in
the form of a monthly fee, for example, from Facebook? Come to think
of it, I could even offer various levels of service, depending on the
fee structure. Now that's the true capitalistic system and it's
perfectly logical and fair. If those bastards at Facebook want to put
their stuff on my coax, why shouldn't they grease my palm a little
bit?
Glenn
On 12/25/2010 10:42 AM, Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 07:04:26 -0600, Glenn<min...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/24/2010 10:55 PM, Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 14:11:26 -0600, Glenn<min...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
>>>> Sid is making the same argument as those that argue for regulation of
>>>> utilities. If you feel that to be dishonest, then I suspect I'm
>>>> subsidizing your phone bill.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's far more probable that I'm subsidizing yours.
>>
>> All I use the cable for is this newsgroup, program updates, local maps
>> and checking restaurant's menus. No telephone, no TV or streaming of
>> anything, not even games. As I recall from the illegal music downloads
>> many of you rationalized, the probabilities are all on my side.
>
>
> Then how could you be subsidizing my phone bill?
>
I thought you were an engineer! When users share a common transmission
network and all pay the same but some use dramatically more bandwidth
than others, those who use less aren't getting their fair share, they
are subsidizing the high rate users who require that the network be more
expensive than if only low rate users used it. This is why programmers
share a common fallacy that increasing the number of pipes increases the
throughput.
--
Glenn
Glenn
What I'm trying to say is that the internet is a utility, similar to the
electric grid. Anyone can use it, but the more use the higher should be
the price. Anything else is a free lunch. Those who object the loudest
are those who are getting cheap telephone and TV service at the expense
of those who's use is much more limited (such as me!).
If a Russian puts out a free program, it's his customers that should pay
for receiving it (Free On Board if you will). If the provider wants to
use internet service he should include it in his price, such as we do
when we say postage and handling extra or included. In fact Microsoft
should be paying for internet use out of their profits. I doubt that my
ISP appreciates all these freeloaders. The effort to track all these
programs would be immense so for now, just measure the traffic and bill
accordingly.
--
Glenn
El Castor
wrote:
>On Dec 24, 12:44 pm, Rumpelstiltskin
Or, CBS spends hundreds of millions a year on programming. Should
Comcast get it for free, or should CBS have the right to ask for
payment? Netflix comes along and starts streaming tens of thousands of
HiDef movies and TV programs. Comcasts network can't handle a 20% -
30% increase traffic during the evening hours, so they need to spend
$300 million on upgrading their system. Who pays? Netflix? Netflix
users? Comcast users who only use the Internet for email? Who? These
are not simple issues.
Rumpelstiltskin
I have DSL for which I pay separately from the telephone,
not dialup.
Rumpelstiltskin
>Right now the internet is pretty democratic. I don't know anything
>about facebook, for example, but obviously anybody in world with a
>computer and an internet connection can get his picture and his story
>on the internet and anybody else in the world with the right equipment
>can read it and exchange ideas and information with him. If I'm in the
>internet or ISP business where's my profit in that? It's true that I
>am making money from my subscribers, but I want more. Facebook is a
>multi-billion dollar corporation, why shouldn't I get some of that in
>the form of a monthly fee, for example, from Facebook? Come to think
>of it, I could even offer various levels of service, depending on the
>fee structure. Now that's the true capitalistic system and it's
>perfectly logical and fair. If those bastards at Facebook want to put
>their stuff on my coax, why shouldn't they grease my palm a little
>bit?
The guy who created facebook is a 26-year old billionaire.
Since facebook doesn't charge, I don't know how he did
that, but the guys who created google which also doesn't
charge got to be billionaires too. Google does have ads,
but facebook doesn't, that I've seen, though I've only tried
to use facebook to find a person, with no success at all.
(When I looked for facebook users in San Francisco, I got
none at all, which I'm sure isn't true, so I clearly don't
understand how facebook works and what it's good for,
or not any good for, at all.)
mg
I agree 100% with what you are saying and I personally don't believe
that the internet should be used to download movies, for instance,
without paying a lot more if it slows things down, but I think ISP's
already have the right to do that.
>
> If a Russian puts out a free program, it's his customers that should pay
> for receiving it (Free On Board if you will). If the provider wants to
> use internet service he should include it in his price, such as we do
> when we say postage and handling extra or included. In fact Microsoft
> should be paying for internet use out of their profits. I doubt that my
> ISP appreciates all these freeloaders. The effort to track all these
> programs would be immense so for now, just measure the traffic and bill
> accordingly.
>
> --
> Glenn- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Glenn
such as Quest for internet and telephone. Same difference but I'll let
another DSL user argue with you as I can't estimate how much you are
costing the other DSL users. I use Quest for local telephone but not
DSL as they never gave me a straight answer on the amount of decreased
throughput at peak hours. Charter seems to provide the same speed
throughout the day.
--
Glenn
Islander
You have it right. We fought this battle and won in the early '80s.
The major network providers wanted to use the same pricing scheme that
they used previously. Had they won, you would be paying for every email
and every item of data that you run through your network connection.
That could still happen.
But, the developers of the Internet (with government support) prevailed
and we not only got standard protocols, but we got pricing by the size
of the pipe that you buy. That works at both ends. When you purchase
DSL, you are purchasing a peak bandwidth. Likewise, when a company like
Google purchases a connection, they are paying for the size of the pipe
at their end, not the number of bits that they push through it.
The issue here is whether or not we will now allow companies to give
preference to certain subscribers. Will AT&T, for example, be allowed
to give NetFlix priority in their portions of the network because
NetFlix pays more, not for their connection to the Internet - they
already have the right to buy a bigger pipe, but for the transmission of
their material over the much larger Internet.
mg
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 10:20:52 -0800 (PST), mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>
Once the "last mile" provider opens the Pandora's box of charging
Netflix or CBS, they're also going to be able to charge for posting my
little website on the internet. Then we'll have the internet toll both
that people have warned about. It just seems to me like the best
solution is for the internet providers to charge the end user more
depending on the total number of bytes downloaded.
Glenn
This isn't the issue, the issue is about academia providing a free lunch
to it's stooges. You want to socialize the internet and those who
disagree want to have fairness prevail. The professors can't see beyond
their selfish interests, apparently they want to be loved. You have yet
to define the problem let alone suggest solutions. Let me help:
The providers are entitled to a profit.
The users are entitled to pay only for what they use.
The solution requires outside direction such as any regulated utility
requires. It can't be controlled internally, that would be more
selfishness.
Therefore, we need the government to provide the leadership, not the
professors.
Therefore you have no credibility.
--
Glenn
mg
What was high tech yesterday is not necessarily high tech today. The
possibility for windfall profits for a lot of companies is gone. A lot
of high-tech products and services have become commoditized. There are
no windfall profits available for computer manufacturers anymore, for
instance. I can buy a computer on the internet any day of the week for
less than I can build one for.
ISP manufacturer's make a profit just as a brick and mortar store
makes a profit selling appliances, for instance, but the amount they
can charge somebody for a dishwasher is limited by the competition and
the amount the consumer is willing to pay. The same thing is true for
ISP's. The glory, get-rich-quick days are gone for the ISPs. So now it
looks to me like they've come up with a new get-rich-quick scheme that
involves putting a toll both on the information highway. I hope they
fail, but I have a lot of fear and respect for the Republican
propaganda machine. If they can make people believe that tax cuts pay
for themselves and that we ought to start preemptive wars against
countries that are no threat to us, I won't be surprised if they get
their toll booths.
Will Janoschka
Wait till this happens and the hackers fix it. The moneyed
will then need something like the DMCA to protect the profit!
Islander
You have fallen for the line of the corporate peddlers who have only one
view of the world.
IBM was one of the companies that fought against a standard protocol,
using an argument very similar to the one you are attempting to make.
Had these companies prevailed, the consumer (including you) would be
forced to make a decision about which network you would use.
Unfortunately, you would be faced with the same problem that we now face
in other new technologies where the companies battle to exclude each
other in the marketplace by providing incompatible services. Instead of
an Internet where anyone can create a website and anyone can access that
website from any computer, you would have had to subscribe to IBM or
AT&T or Microsoft or AOL. You could access their client services, but
not the others. And, you would pay for your use, just as you used to
pay a fee for every phone call. In that environment, the Internet
revolution would never have happened because the tens of thousands of
markets would never have had a chance to develop.
Today, everyone has a chance to make a profit. The large companies that
provide the backbone of the Internet have benefited from the massive
increase in volume that they compete to provide. No one has the
opportunity to create a monopoly. And, everyone has equal opportunity
to compete on a level playing field, including the smallest innovator
and the smallest customer. It is capitalism at it's best.
I had the very great privilege to work with Vint Cerf when he led the
battle with the big telecom companies. He had the extraordinary vision
to see what the Internet could become. He succeeded.
He strongly opposes giving certain companies an advantage in how their
data is handled in the backbone. Rather than stimulating the
development of higher performance networks, this will only result in
dividing a limited resource with advantage given to large companies.
The small companies and the customers will suffer as a result.
Islander
provide the backbone networks that transmit data to the ISPs who provide
you with the final connection. In some cases they are the same company,
but often not.
The Internet is a packet-switched network meaning that every data
connection is broken down into finite sized packets which include
addressing information so that they can travel from source to
destination independent of any particular carrier. This makes the
Internet very robust (remember that it was initially built for the DoD).
So, this post will be broken down into pieces and none of the pieces
have to travel by the same route. They are reassembled into the whole
only when they reach you.
This is a very efficient way to run a network, vastly different from the
end-to-end dedicated connection that telecom companies used to use.
Also very different from the various other multiplexing and bandwidth
sharing schemes that telecom companies advocated before the Internet.
Now, picture what would happen if AT&T or MCI or any of the big telecom
companies entered into a deal where NetFlix or any other company that
needed a lot of bandwidth could get priority in what is now an otherwise
smoothly operating network. If you understand queuing theory, once you
give priority to some packets, the entire network runs less efficiently
due to the increased overhead of a priority scheme. But, the most
serious problem is that bandwidth is ultimately limited and only so many
packets can be accommodated. The information providers who do not buy
priority service on the backbone suffer and the consumer has fewer
options. The result favors the large companies at the expense of the
small companies (and there are still tens of thousands of creative
people out there still inventing something new).
Glenn
It's nothing at it's best but a free lunch for those who continually
think up ways for someone else to pay their way. Same with Unix, you
are ethically incorrect. Sid and I have defined the problem correctly,
you're just into socialist promotion and capitalist bashing. No one is
trying to control the content, just the volume -- stop with the straw men.
BTW, my ISP is Charter cable. Is that one of the big telecom companies?
They have gone through bankrupsy and are heading in that direction again.
--
Glenn
Glenn
I took a years course in queuing theory and I assure you I can work out
a plan for maximizing efficiency. That's the reason for its use.
What's with all this dishonesty?
--
Glenn
mg
It looks like it's about ISP's according to Wikipedia:
". . . Though the term did not enter popular use until several years
later, since the early 2000s advocates of net neutrality and
associated rules have raised concerns about the ability of broadband
providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet
applications and content (e.g., websites, services, protocols), even
blocking out competitors. In the US particularly, but elsewhere as
well, the possibility of regulations designed to mandate the
neutrality of the Internet has been subject to fierce debate.
Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a
tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby
remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers
to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services. Many believe net
neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current
freedoms.[4] Vinton Cerf, considered a "father of the Internet" and co-
inventor of the Internet Protocol, Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the
Web, and many others have spoken out in favor of network neutrality.[5]
[6]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
> The Internet is a packet-switched network meaning that every data
> connection is broken down into finite sized packets which include
> addressing information so that they can travel from source to
> destination independent of any particular carrier. This makes the
> Internet very robust (remember that it was initially built for the DoD).
> So, this post will be broken down into pieces and none of the pieces
> have to travel by the same route. They are reassembled into the whole
> only when they reach you.
>
> This is a very efficient way to run a network, vastly different from the
> end-to-end dedicated connection that telecom companies used to use.
> Also very different from the various other multiplexing and bandwidth
> sharing schemes that telecom companies advocated before the Internet.
>
> Now, picture what would happen if AT&T or MCI or any of the big telecom
> companies entered into a deal where NetFlix or any other company that
> needed a lot of bandwidth could get priority in what is now an otherwise
> smoothly operating network. If you understand queuing theory, once you
> give priority to some packets, the entire network runs less efficiently
> due to the increased overhead of a priority scheme. But, the most
> serious problem is that bandwidth is ultimately limited and only so many
> packets can be accommodated. The information providers who do not buy
> priority service on the backbone suffer and the consumer has fewer
> options. The result favors the large companies at the expense of the
> small companies (and there are still tens of thousands of creative
> people out there still inventing something new).- Hide quoted text -
mg
> Proprietors Win, Again
>
> (http://open.salon.com//blog/steven_axelrod/2010/12/21/proprietors_win...)
>
> The internet as we know it is officially doomed, as of today,
> and I`m already feeling nostalgic. Funny that a technology
> could move so fast across the landscape of my life - from a
> geeks-only fluke to a curiosity, to a useful tool, to a powerful
> engine of -
>
> Steven Axelrod (http://open.salon.com//blog/steven_axelrod)
> --
> Mussolini's definition of fascism: "the moment when you couldn't
> put a cigarette paper between political and corporate power."
>
> "to email me, delete blackhole from my return address
The situation reminds me of something Ronald Reagan said during the
Reagan v. Bush debate when the moderator attempted to cut off the
microphone:
"I am paying for this microphone."
I'm paying for the internet and I want complete access to everything
that's legal and I don't want any moderators flipping any switches.
Thumper
wrote:
I've worked for AT&T for 43 years and I agree with you 100%.
Thumper
Thumper
wrote:
>On Dec 26, 9:56 am, Islander <nos...@priracy.net> wrote:
That is NOT what the current argument is about.
Thumper
Thumper
wrote:
>On Dec 25, 1:42 pm, El Castor <ElPoloGra...@nowhere.net> wrote:
You are free to go to another ISP. You have no choice on the
backbone.
Thumper
El Castor
wrote:
>On Dec 25, 1:42 pm, El Castor <ElPoloGra...@nowhere.net> wrote:
First, keep in mind that Comcast charging Netflix is one thing, but
CBS charging Comcast is an entirely different issue. The literal
meaning of net neutrality is that bandwidth providers should not be
able to restrict one kind of traffic, but not another. They should be
"neutral". Naturally, Comcast wants to preserve it's lucrative TV
business, so they "might" like to say -- stream Hulu, Netflix, or any
of the popular TV web sites, and we will charge you to access the
site. So you say, be neutral, don't charge, just charge for bandwidth
usage. Well, I would just point out that if all you do is browse, post
to UseNet, and do email, you will never go over 5 gigs a month. A
charge for usage over 5 gigs is in effect a tax on Internet video
streaming. No difference.
Islander
Sigh! As soon as you move away from FIFO, queues start building up
unevenly. That produces inefficiency as the overhead builds. There are
situations where that can be useful, but not in the Internet switches.
Take a nap, Glenn, and come back when you are in a better mood.
mg
What do you mean?
Will Janoschka
Not to bitch at you Islander, the decision is now avalible at
http://www.fcc.gov/ !
They have:
A press release, 4th grade language and a lot of ambiguity!
The decision, FCC-10-201A1.pdf .
The opinions of each member, A2-A6.
The decision is 194 pages and harder to read than Das Kapital!
The opinion of M. Clayborn, " FCC-10-201A5.pdf", is both for
and against the decision. 2 pages, a good place to start.
What you see here are opinions about the press release! -will-
Will Janoschka
> .. . .
He means that you should look at the ruling ratherthan
someones opinion uf the ruling.
mg
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 17:54:12 -0800 (PST), mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>
I'm intuitively, and I suppose philosophically, opposed to the idea of
video streaming video over the internet. I, personally, get my movies
from Netflix in the mail. The same thing goes for cell phones having
internet access. In general, I like to conserve natural resources,
whether it be clean air or bandwidth. On the other hand, though, I
don't know how much band width is available on the fiber optic
information highway without spending huge amounts of additional money.
I do know that over-the-air bandwidth is finite, and maybe we will
need this additional bandwidth for military purposes or something in
the future.
My own personal use is miniscule. Every few months, I will build a
computer or reinstall an OS for a friend or relative and that requires
a few hundred megabytes of software downloading from the internet. One
movie, on the other hand, probably requires about 5GB to 10GB,
depending on compression levels. I do receive real-time quotes on
stocks every day, though, all day long, and I get those quotes almost
instantly. So, I certainly wouldn't want anyone putting speed bumps on
the information highway because of the bandwidth used by movie
watchers. I also like to download freeware software, and buy software
on the internet, and I buy a lot of stuff from Amazon. So, of course,
I wouldn't want internet providers charging sellers extra just to get
on the internet on-ramp.
mg
That sounds like good advice. :-)
mg
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 17:54:12 -0800 (PST), mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>
That's true, I suppose.
Islander
Thanks for the link. Yes, it appears that the main focus of the
decision *is* on the ISPs, specifically broadband access providers. It
appears to me that the wording of the act is sufficiently broad to
include the backbone providers as well. That distinction is
increasingly becoming moot as large telecom companies are moving
vigorously into broadband access.
In any case, the legislation prohibits unfair competition by outlawing
"pay for priority." That is a good thing, IMV.
Glenn
Islander, if you want anyone to believe anything you write you need to
backup your Socialistic authoritarian pronouncements with references, at
least to the text book and classes you have taken on this subject. As I
see it, you haven't gone beyond prejudiced Internet postings and that's
breaking one of the rules of searching for truth.
--
Glenn
El Castor
wrote:
>On Dec 26, 1:17 pm, El Castor <ElPoloGra...@nowhere.net> wrote:
Huh? Bandwidth is not a natural resource. Why should manufacturers
record millions of DVDs, consuming tons of plastic, just so they can
fill huge warehouses, and then Netflix can ship those DVD's in postal
vehicles to millions of homes across the United States and Canada for
manual delivery to customers, when one image of a movie could be
transmitted to a Netflix server, and distributed as light impulses
over a fiber optic network to homes all over the world without the
need for a single envelope, warehouse, truck, or plastic disk? BTW --
we are also seeing the beginnings of the digital transmission of
movies to theaters. I saw a digital version of Avatar in a theater.
The file is transmitted one to a theater, recorded on a computer, and
put on the screen using a digital projector, eliminating the need for
rolls of film, and all the hassle that goes with that.
>On the other hand, though, I
>don't know how much band width is available on the fiber optic
>information highway without spending huge amounts of additional money.
>I do know that over-the-air bandwidth is finite, and maybe we will
>need this additional bandwidth for military purposes or something in
>the future.
Sorry, this is the information age. We will always need more
bandwidth, and we will get it, however it has to be paid for.
>My own personal use is miniscule. Every few months, I will build a
>computer or reinstall an OS for a friend or relative and that requires
>a few hundred megabytes of software downloading from the internet. One
>movie, on the other hand, probably requires about 5GB to 10GB,
>depending on compression levels. I do receive real-time quotes on
>stocks every day, though, all day long, and I get those quotes almost
>instantly. So, I certainly wouldn't want anyone putting speed bumps on
>the information highway because of the bandwidth used by movie
>watchers. I also like to download freeware software, and buy software
>on the internet, and I buy a lot of stuff from Amazon. So, of course,
>I wouldn't want internet providers charging sellers extra just to get
>on the internet on-ramp.
The future of computing is probably in "the cloud". Applications
stored on the Internet (as well as data). Whether you are on your
phone, at home, or travelling, your applications and data would always
be available. You pay an annual fee and the cloud provider (Google?)
would automatically backup your data and upgrade your software --
which you would access with a so called thin client, or terminal.
Things change. I have read that technology is beginning to evolve
geometrically, and by the end of this century will have experienced a
virtual evolution of 1,000 years based on the pace of progress in the
year 2000. Seems hard to believe, but it has been barely 100 years
since the Wright Brothers first flew.
Islander
"Socialistic authoritarian pronouncements?" Chuckle!
Too bad that you feel the need to make personal attacks when you cannot
carry a technical discussion.
mg
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 07:14:30 -0800 (PST), mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>
With the Cloud, then, in a way we will be going back full circle. Back
in the late 70s and early 80s, I worked at a steel plant andI wrote a
railroad car tracking system, with Fortran, using a teletype machine.
The teletype machine was my terminal and the computer was a mainframe
located in Gary Indiana.
Will Janoschka
Have you read the decision, rather than your buddys interpretation of
it?
Will Janoschka
> > > > >> end-to-end dedicated connection that telecom companies used to use..
> > > > >> Also very different from the various other multiplexing and bandwidth
> > > > >> sharing schemes that telecom companies advocated before the Internet.
> >
> > > > >> Now, picture what would happen if AT&T or MCI or any of the big telecom
> > > > >> companies entered into a deal where NetFlix or any other company that
> > > > >> needed a lot of bandwidth could get priority in what is now an otherwise
> > > > >> smoothly operating network. If you understand queuing theory, once you
> > > > >> give priority to some packets, the entire network runs less efficiently
> > > > >> due to the increased overhead of a priority scheme. But, the most
> > > > >> serious problem is that bandwidth is ultimately limited and only so many
> > > > >> packets can be accommodated. The information providers who do not buy
> > > > >> priority service on the backbone suffer and the consumer has fewer
> > > > >> options. The result favors the large companies at the expense of the
> > > > >> small companies (and there are still tens of thousands of creative
> > > > >> people out there still inventing something new).- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > -> That is NOT what the current argument is about.
> > > -> Thumper
> >
> > > What do you mean?
> >
> > He means that you should look at the ruling ratherthan
> > someones opinion uf the ruling.
>
> That sounds like good advice. :-)
Hi Max.
Here are the real links
El Castor
wrote:
>On Dec 27, 5:34�pm, El Castor <ElPoloGra...@nowhere.net> wrote:
Ironic isn't it, but it would sure be a boon to corporations with tens
of thousands of workstations. Files always available while travelling,
an end to workstation reliability issues, not nearly as many IT
people, more efficient and secure backup process, fewer expensive and
hard to maintain server rooms, and a painless software upgrade
process.
Glenn
Of course I'm not going to read it. We never thought that TCP/IP was a
serious protocol and when it was adapted for the Internet, we pretty
much gave up on trying to make the Internet efficient. Apparently the
communications companies, such as IBM, have decided to give it another try.
--
Glenn
Will Janoschka
Who are the "we" to which you refer? Who are the persons that helped
design
and built the internet in the early 60s that would agree with you?
Clue-- the internet was never designed to be "efficient" but rather
"robust", with
no single point of falure. It did that pretty well, but a billion
fools can overwhelm
anything. Milnet uses the same protocol and still works well by the
simple
expedient of not letting "all" the fools get to it. Thanks for not
reading the decision,
I wouldn't want you to actualluy learn something. -will-
Will Janoschka
wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 20:18:26 -0800 (PST), mg <mgke...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
"the cloud" would be nice, were it something besides a marketing ploy!
Please give an example of cloud computing doing what you claim.
I have a daughter-in-law that works for Orange. The security problems
are a nightmare if not impossible to fix.
Glenn
We were IBM engineers but my specialty wasn't communications. I'm just
passing along the results of their analysis. Why would a DASD
specialist have any reason to correct a communications specialist? We
would have used something like the Europeans setup who's name I forget
but related to SNA/SDLC with included video and data. Any distributed
network guards against failure but that doesn't negate efficiency. BTW
insults lose, not win arguments.
--
Glenn
mg
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 20:18:26 -0800 (PST), mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> The future of computing is probably in "the cloud". Applications
> >> stored on the Internet (as well as data). Whether you are on your
> >> phone, at home, or travelling, your applications and data would always
> >> be available. You pay an annual fee and the cloud provider (Google?)
> >> would automatically backup your data and upgrade your software --
> >> which you would access with a so called thin client, or terminal.
> >> Things change. I have read that technology is beginning to evolve
> >> geometrically, and by the end of this century will have experienced a
> >> virtual evolution of 1,000 years based on the pace of progress in the
> >> year 2000. Seems hard to believe, but it has been barely 100 years
> >> since the Wright Brothers first flew.
>
> >With the Cloud, then, in a way we will be going back full circle. Back
> >in the late 70s and early 80s, I worked at a steel plant andI wrote a
> >railroad car tracking system, with Fortran, using a teletype machine.
> >The teletype machine was my terminal and the computer was a mainframe
> >located in Gary Indiana.
>
> Ironic isn't it, but it would sure be a boon to corporations with tens
> of thousands of workstations. Files always available while travelling,
> an end to workstation reliability issues, not nearly as many IT
> people, more efficient and secure backup process, fewer expensive and
> hard to maintain server rooms, and a painless software upgrade
> process.
That could be so efficient, it sends chills up my spine. When I wrote
the railroad car tracking system, I knew that someday it would result
in some layoffs. I used to get the same kind of feeling then and would
get twinges of guilt. As it turned out U.S. Steel sold the plant
anyway, before that could happen. There were rumors at the last place
I worked before I retired, in 2001, that they were going to take away
everyone's computer and replace them terminals. They never did,
though. Maybe they couldn't find a way a way to make it work back
then.
El Castor
Janoschka) wrote:
>
>"the cloud" would be nice, were it something besides a marketing ploy!
>Please give an example of cloud computing doing what you claim.
>I have a daughter-in-law that works for Orange. The security problems
>are a nightmare if not impossible to fix.
Ok, it's in it's infancy, but here's an example -- Google Docs:
https://www.google.com/accounts/ServiceLogin?service=writely&passive=1209600&continue=http://docs.google.com/&followup=http://docs.google.com/<mpl=homepage
http://googledocs.blogspot.com/
Google Docs offers a free version of of the microsoft Office suite --
word processing, spreadsheets, and presentations using the same file
format as Microsoft, plus Google's Gmail. It's evolving, but the
target is clearly the business user and Microsoft. Google isn't in the
charity business. Microsoft, as usual is late to the party, but
they've got something similar going.
Create a presentation on-line, go to the meeting in Paris, and using
your own laptop/smartphone/iPad, or someone elses, the whole thing is
there waiting for you, along with your word processing documents, and
spreadsheets. A lot of people use it. One of the complaints about the
iPad when it first came out was there was no Google Docs app. There is
now.
As far as security is concerned, Google has some of the best people in
the world. They'll figure it out. Look at security on the PC --
viruses, worms, trojans, key loggers, root kits, and more. Yikes!