http://www.markevanstech.com/2006/03/18/net-neutrality-bandwagon-gathers-steam/ A Canadian Take on the Web Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:12:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 http://www.markevanstech.com/2006/03/18/net-neutrality-bandwagon-gathers-steam/#comment-1243 Pilgrim Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:16:42 +0000 http://markevanstech.com/?p=1393#comment-1243 The Neutrality issue is anything but cut and dried. The statement: "Defenders of “net neutrality” should be careful not to harm the very thing they want to protect" is the real key to this discussion. There is an awful lot of chatter going around about how the telecoms are trying to stick it to the little guy. I think there is nothing to that. By the way, the letter signed by AARP and others referenced above is hardly an incendiary call to arms. The Neutrality issue is anything but cut and dried. The statement: “Defenders of “net neutrality” should be careful not to harm the very thing they want to protect” is the real key to this discussion. There is an awful lot of chatter going around about how the telecoms are trying to stick it to the little guy. I think there is nothing to that. By the way, the letter signed by AARP and others referenced above is hardly an incendiary call to arms.

]]> http://www.markevanstech.com/2006/03/18/net-neutrality-bandwagon-gathers-steam/#comment-1242 Stefan Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:04:48 +0000 http://markevanstech.com/?p=1393#comment-1242 It's no a simple issue since it's not about speeds and feeds. When was the last time you were able to connect to any service that maximizes your advertized broadband speed? Other than BitTorrent and some other P2P apps the answer is that you've almost never been able to maximize your connection speed since the Internet and the servers which connect to it is a shared medium. The real issue is not about speed but how the routing elements prioritize traffic. Gaming doesn't work better at 10 meg connections, it works better when there is less jitter. When a router receives a packet in its queue it can prioritize this 'inbox' to route packets that may benefit from less jitter first. While this hasno discernable effect on Web browsing and e-mail it means the world of difference to gaming. Do we sacrifice good service on the alter of 'net neutrality'? What about attack traffic situations like DoS attacks against a subscriber? Sorry your phone and most other services don't work, we're network neutral... What about when a subscriber -- like most people reading this -- doesn't realise the access connection consumption ramifications of getting video download or some less innocuous service? Sure I can wait an extra couple seconds for the Web page to download (hey, I'm getting an NCAA final four video feed here!) but why can't I dial 911? It's about traffic prioritisation. The service provider should be able to prioritize the services they know about (like the ones they provide). How are they supposed to know that the encrypted flow going to your house is actually some sensitive service? Net neutrality means advanced services suck and network environmental conditions kill the connection. The real solution is to guarantee equal opportunity to traffic prioritisation. /Stefan thel0r4x@hotmail.com It's no a simple issue since it's not about speeds and feeds. When was the last time you were able to connect to any service that maximizes your advertized broadband speed? Other than BitTorrent and some other P2P apps the answer is that you've almost never been able to maximize your connection speed since the Internet and the servers which connect to it is a shared medium.
The real issue is not about speed but how the routing elements prioritize traffic. Gaming doesn't work better at 10 meg connections, it works better when there is less jitter. When a router receives a packet in its queue it can prioritize this 'inbox' to route packets that may benefit from less jitter first. While this hasno discernable effect on Web browsing and e-mail it means the world of difference to gaming. Do we sacrifice good service on the alter of 'net neutrality'?
What about attack traffic situations like DoS attacks against a subscriber? Sorry your phone and most other services don't work, we're network neutral…
What about when a subscriber — like most people reading this — doesn't realise the access connection consumption ramifications of getting video download or some less innocuous service? Sure I can wait an extra couple seconds for the Web page to download (hey, I'm getting an NCAA final four video feed here!) but why can't I dial 911?
It's about traffic prioritisation. The service provider should be able to prioritize the services they know about (like the ones they provide). How are they supposed to know that the encrypted flow going to your house is actually some sensitive service? Net neutrality means advanced services suck and network environmental conditions kill the connection. The real solution is to guarantee equal opportunity to traffic prioritisation.
/Stefan
thel0r4x@hotmail.com

]]> http://www.markevanstech.com/2006/03/18/net-neutrality-bandwagon-gathers-steam/#comment-1241 Mobilemedia Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:46:53 +0000 http://markevanstech.com/?p=1393#comment-1241 We must not let the Telco’s dictate our viewing or download privileges. After all, we live in a democracy. If we allow them control of our download privileges, we can kiss competition out the door. We must not let the Telco’s dictate our viewing or download privileges. After all, we live in a democracy. If we allow them control of our download privileges, we can kiss competition out the door.

]]>