This will piss you off! Net Neutrality Ad

by **cavalierlwt** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 4:56 pm

http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?ContentID=3526

Christ, there should be some law against creating an Ad that is this much of a lie, and condescending as hell to boot!

For those that haven't followed it, Telecoms and Cable co's want to end 'Net Neutrality', which is the concept that the Internet is an equally available medium. The telcos want to divide the net into tiers, and charge companies money if they want their service to be on the fast tier, or the slow tier. For example, ECGN would have to pay each Telco or Cable company money, or they'll be put on a slow, high latency tier. Also, the companies could use the fast/slow scheme to put down one company if favor of another, maybe make it so Yahoo loads slowly and Google loads quickly (you can imagine all the corruption and scheming this would encourage).

That commercial makes me want to take shovel and beat someone's head in though. If anyone ever talked like that to me over *any* subject, they'd get a fist in a mouth. "just a bunch of mumbo jumbo", Christ it's like saying 'Don't worry your stupid little mind over this, it's too much for you to understand, just trust me instead'

by **Evan** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 5:11 pm

Originally posted by cavalierlwt
http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?ContentID=3526

Christ, there should be some law against creating an Ad that is this much of a lie, and condescending as hell to boot!

For those that haven't followed it, Telecoms and Cable co's want to end 'Net Neutrality', which is the concept that the Internet is an equally available medium. The telcos want to divide the net into tiers, and charge companies money if they want their service to be on the fast tier, or the slow tier. For example, ECGN would have to pay each Telco or Cable company money, or they'll be put on a slow, high latency tier. Also, the companies could use the fast/slow scheme to put down one company if favor of another, maybe make it so Yahoo loads slowly and Google loads quickly (you can imagine all the corruption and scheming this would encourage).

That commercial makes me want to take shovel and beat someone's head in though. If anyone ever talked like that to me over *any* subject, they'd get a fist in a mouth. "just a bunch of mumbo jumbo", Christ it's like saying 'Don't worry your stupid little mind over this, it's too much for you to understand, just trust me instead'

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

by **cavalierlwt** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 5:24 pm

Thanks for the link Evan.
It's kind of telling when one side wants to explain the issue, and the other wants to tell you it's just a lot of 'mumbo jumbo'

by **SavageParrot** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 5:57 pm

Paid for by the national cable and telecommunications association... Now there's a surprise. What possible motive could they have for lying about this?

by **cavalierlwt** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:21 pm

no need to question it, it's much too technical for us, it's just 'mumbo jumbo'. Trust the Telcos, they know what's best.
Sleep.
Sleep.
Sleeeeeeep.

by **Chacal** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:47 pm

There are five lights.

by **cavalierlwt** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:25 pm

Originally posted by Chacal
There are five lights.

?????

by **Jungle_Fowl** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:28 pm

Originally posted by Chacal
There are five lights.

Actually there are 4, but who's counting

by **Sayntfuu** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 12:50 am

I for one do not welcome our new telecom overloards.

by **petersapien** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 12:57 am

Originally posted by Sayntfuu
I for one do not welcome our new telecom overloards.

Thats where i hit the mutany buttion.

REVOLT!!!:ar15:

by **=ender=** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:43 am

This topic has been burning my britches since I first heard about it. And that ad just pisses me off all that much more.

by **Major SONAR** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:15 am

As I understand it... Someone wants to enact a law to keep the internet the way it currently is (i.e. "Net Neutrality"). I read most of Evan's link, but I have to admit I'm confused.

Is that what Net Neutrality is, keeping the Net the way it is and preventing the big Cable and Teleco's from altering the way things currently exist? Do we really need a law for this, or am I missing something?

Please explain why you are FOR or AGAINST Net Neutrality.

by **cavalierlwt** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:29 am

Net Neutrality is for keeping the net the way it is now. The Telcos want to make a 'fast net' and a 'slow net', and companies would have to pay extra to be on the fast net. In fact, they'd have to pay extra to each telco.
So imagine ECGN. They pay the fee to Comcast, but not Verizon. ECGN would be fast (like it is now) to anyone on Comcast, but if you are on Verizon, ECGN would be slow, unplayable.

I might be wrong about being forced to make payment to each carrier, but can't see how this would be avoided, as each carrier would want extra for high speed data.

by **PraiseA||ah** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 12:01 pm

This is how I understand the issue.

I think it was AT&T CEO that started this - or at least brought it into the forefront by stating that Google should be paying them above and beyond what they ALREADY pay for connectivity. He felt that Google, while paying enormous sums of money, as any and every company does for dedicated lines, should be paying MORE for using those lines.

Add into this the desire of companies to be able to classify useage into levels of service which correspond to levels of priority of traffic which have a price point. e.g. Company A pays a premium for having it's traffic prioritized over all other types of traffic. It doesn't matter WHAT that traffic is. Voice, website or a whatever, it's traffic will take priority in processing through their network over anyone else's traffic. This means delays for everyone else's traffic if Company A is a large company with lots of data going through - or if a lot of Company A's have lots of traffic. All other, lower cost traffic will be queued - adding to latency and dropped packets which have time limits for delivery.

Currently, this kind of prioritzation already happens but it is limited in scope. I think it's based upon TYPE of data. i.e., voice data vs websites. Voice needs low latency or it sounds garbled. Websites don't need to be delivered in the same way and a slight delay doesn't hurt the perception of the website. These kinds of prioritizations are in use now- except they aren't rules shared by all and aren't based upon money paid by one company vs another. Once traffic leaves one company's network, it's up to the next network to set priorities.. or not as they see fit to enable prioritization.

What these major communications companies want to do is base the prioritzation on money. It really is a fundamental change in the way traffic would be handled and could have a drastic and a negative impact on everyone's experience of the internet - unless you pay more for YOUR traffic.

What I base the above on.
I have a basic understanding of TCP/IP. I have also worked with ATM to a certain extent and read a bit of MPLS. I do not know BGP but have worked with the lower types of routing protocols RIP and OSPF.

by **[ecgn] btt** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 12:09 pm

This sounds like a good Idea for our highway system. I would gladly pay so I can drive at over 80 without getting a ticket.

As for Net Neutrality. Just another example of big corporations making policies that are to their liking and no other. So much for "for the people, by the people"

This will piss you off! Net Neutrality Ad

This will piss you off! Net Neutrality Ad

Re: This will piss you off! Net Neutrality Ad

Who is online