I don’t understand how ISPs have so much power in the USA. They’re leeching onto the WWW, right - providing a service?
If they can’t manage to provide what ISPs do around the world, then how about finding others that do?
It’s amazing to me that no matter how many times people post this and other situations that led to net neutrality, people who are against it still seem to think “Nothing was wrong BEFORE net neutrality, why do we need it?”
Amazing I say.
The big ISPs lobbied to repeal net neutrality. Do people think they did that to benefit their customers??
hahahahahahahahahaha!
You’re ardently against a plan you don’t understand.
Do you believe that yesterday, some FCC rule prevented monthly caps on the amount of data that home consumers can use? And that now, that rule is gone?
I bet you can’t actually find that rule anywhere, though.
Because – shockingly – there was no such rule.
Your citation’s first link incorrectly claims that Madison River blocked Vonage. They blocked VOIP. Now, it’s true that Vonage was affected, but so were any other VOIP users. The writeup invites a reader to believe that Madison River was disfavoring one company over another. There were blocking UDP 5060 - 5065.
You knew this, right?
So as long as Comcast blocks all video streaming services, and not just Netflix (but of course not their own streaming service), that’s pretty cool and good for the consumer.
It’s true that the Net began as neutral. But that was a Net that carried ftp, telnet, uucp, and gopher.
Do you oppose core routers that have QoS settings? Technically, that’s treating different traffic differently. Oh, the horror!
What? The internet in the US has had neutrality protections from its inception until today, with a slight gap between that court ruling and the title 2 reclassification. Where are you getting “began” as neutral? It has always been.
Depends on the specifics, and if we’re talking about the ISP backend or level 3 carriers or what.
I think the discussion should distinguish between QoS applied to content *source[/i and QoS (or outright blocking) applied to content type.
I’m generally OK with an ISP making a business decision to throttle types of traffic.
At my least cynical, I see this as simply a way for big corporations to make more money by charging us ala carte for internet access.
But my inner conspiracy theorist can’t help but imagine those same big corporations – who are about to be handed a giant tax break by the GOP-controlled congress – picking and choosing which news organizations we can and cannot get our information from, all while keeping in mind the hand that feeds them.
I find it as amusing when a non-technical type (such as a lawyer) tries to use IT jargon to get a point across as you probably do when a non-lawyer (such as an IT person) uses fancy law jargon to get a point across.
Madison River did block Vonage. I’m not sure what’s incorrect about it. Was Vonage blocked? Yes. Was it blocked by Madison River Communications? Yes. Thus, Madison River blocked Vonage.
Vonage was used because they are the one who brought the complaint. The more important question is, why were Vonage (and other VOIP companies) blocked? Oh yeah, because those VOIP companies were taking customers away from traditional land-line services. Services provided by, you guessed it, Madison River Communications.
How are we saying anything different from each other?
If it began as neutral, then it was neutral at the beginning. That was not a result of “rule,” because there was no sense that prioritizing types of traffic over ARPANET was a desirable thing.
There came a point when the technology and the desire both existed to treat different types of traffic differently.
Then there were net neutrality rules, which were challenged as being an invalid exercise of FCC power.
Then broadband was reclassified as a common carrier.
Sure, there are specifics. But if your objection is to treating different traffic differently, then why do those specifics matter? You spout this egalitarian claim, no doubt wth “America the Beautiful,” playing in the background, about treating all net traffic the same. So why is the use of QoS acceptable anywhere?
Cite that core Internet routers utilize those QoS settings to prioritize traffic based on traffic type?
Why? What benefit does it have to the consumer that their ISP, which may be their only choice to access the internet, could block all video stremaing services? Why is that superior to our current model where everyone can access any content in the world? Why is this better for anyone except the ISPs? And if it’s not, then is simply literally having an aversion to the idea of a regulation worth making the world worse for everyone?
Snarkiness aside, which do you find OK:
-
Comcast limits streaming from Netflix only to 1Mbps.
-
Comcast limits all video streaming to 1Mbps.
-
Comcast limits all video streaming to 1Mbps, except Comcast provided streaming. Which has no limits.
I interpreted your original statement as trying to suggest that only the early internet had neutrality.
Given that the big lie to sell people on repealing neutrality has been to lie to them about net neutrality not being the norm of the internet, it seemed misleading to me. But I guess you’re trying to say more like “the internet has outgrown the need for neutrality”
Early neutrality on the commercial internet actually was a rule - it was within the bylaws of the NSFNet backbone which required compliance by any commercial entity using it.
Hence this is why I said it depends on the specifics. If the QoS re-orders traffic based on type, then yes, I oppose that being allowed on ISP or L3 networks. You’ve invented the idea that I’m being inconsistent by declaring that my insistence that it depends on the specifics to somehow mean I support the position you want me to support.
OK:
What else does QoS do, do you think, besides prioritize traffic based on traffic type?
Or are you asking about core vs edge? My cite answers the question, “Does QoS prioritize traffic?”
And as for the other 10 examples…?
Sorry, but a link to a manual that shows what is POSSIBLE is not a cite that core Internet Routers utilize QoS based on traffic type.
And yes, QoS is used to prioritize traffic based on traffic type.
Yes. I don’t claim, nor have I really heard argued by anyone else, that neutrality has not been the norm . . . for some values of “neutrality.” That is, we have long made decisions abut traffic based on the traffic type, because FTP doesn’t need the same latency resistance that H.264 does. Video is bursty and telnet isn’t, relatively speaking. SMTP is easygoing.
So in that sense of the word, it’s been a long time since your end-node-to-end-node connection was absolutely neutral.
Early neutrality on the commercial internet actually was a rule - it was within the bylaws of the NSFNet backbone which required compliance by any commercial entity using it.
I’m not saying you’re being inconsistent – I’m saying that in search of a good slogan, you’ve oversimplified.
OK, so you’re looking for a cite that core routers use QoS?