









Comments     Threshold


Net neutrality? I don't think so.
By Looey on 10/23/2009 4:38:55 PM , Rating: 1
Net neutrality as defined by the FCC is a proposal for all data to flow over the network equally. If all of an ISP's customers start downloading multi gigabyte files at the same time they will be treated with the same priority as someone sitting at his keyboard waiting on a response from a web site. The FCC (Obama & Google) want to treat bulk data the same as traffic generated by a person.

If a person is making $100 an hour and has slow response because an ISP has his connections choked, it makes no sense to prioritize all the data the same and never has. This will force ISPs to add more hardware and bandwidth to speed up response time. The cost will be passed on to the customers. For ISP haters, don't say sign up fewer customers and there will be more bandwidth to go around. That will raise the costs or make the ISP quit the business.

Technically, net neutrality is bad business. To stop an ISP from setting high priorities to keyboard users and make them fall in with bulk data transfer is asinine.

Net neutrality will not lower anyone's connection costs. Just the opposite, it will enable companies like Google to make a lot of money on consumers backs. The FCC is only doing what it is told. The FCC is not thinking for itself, it is doing what it is being told to do. It is all politics and about money to be made by a few companies and will not benefit anyone but them.

RE: Net neutrality? I don't think so.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

RE: Net neutrality? I don't think so.


Perish the thought.


RE: Net neutrality? I don't think so.
By HrilL on 10/23/2009 7:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get why people defend ISPs so damn much. First off it cost them on average less than $1 (this is a 2002-3 estimate it is likely even lower now days) per subscriber per month. I currently pay $50. That is a hefty amount of profit for these companies to offer a lack luster services at best.

I say all data is treated equally. If an ISP needs more capacity then they need to build their networks to support the users they sell a service to. If I pay for a 10Mb/s line then I should get 10Mb/s non stop worth of bandwidth. It is a known fact that ISP's over sell capacity quite a bit and want to use management techniques instead of upgrading their networks like they should be. Simply put they want to make an even larger profit then they are currently making.

And just because I am doing bulk data transfers doesn't mean I want don't want it to go just as fast as someone else loading a web page. Who is to say Joe bob going to a porn site is more important then me downloading the latest linux distro? I don't think we should allow the IPS's to make that choice.

The cost shouldn't be passed on to anyone. They should have been using their massive profit to build out infrastructure to stay ahead of the trends of users. If you have a user base that consumes a lot then that is likely what more and more users will be consuming in the future. Its not rocket science. Its proving a damn network. I mean damn a network is considered full at 80% utilization and a routers CPU is 70% utilization according to cisco. Its networking 101 stuff these ISP don't want to follow.

The only traffic that should have a higher priority is VoIP traffic since packets don't always make it to their destinations in order. VoIP degrades easily when latency fluctuates too much.


Related Articles
Verizon, Google Talk Net Neutrality
October 22, 2009, 9:40 AM
