Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cisco Opposes Net Neutrality

Soulskill posted about 2 months ago | from the noted-and-filed dept.

Networking 337

angry tapir writes: All bits running over the Internet are not equal and should not be treated that way by broadband providers, despite net neutrality advocates' calls for traffic neutral regulations, Cisco Systems has said. Some Web-based applications, including rapidly growing video services, home health monitoring and public safety apps, will demand priority access to the network, while others, like most Web browsing and email, may live with slight delays, said Jeff Campbell, Cisco's vice president for government and community relations. "Different bits do matter differently. We need to ensure that we have a system that allows this to occur."

cancel ×

337 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Somewhere in my mind... (5, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 months ago | (#47208955)

Somehow in my mind Cisco and Oracle are the same company. Maybe I have reached my dotage, but when I see one mentioned the other may as well be there too. They are like Satan had identical twins separated at birth.

Re:Somewhere in my mind... (5, Funny)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 months ago | (#47208967)

They should merge and call the result Oracicle.

Re:Somewhere in my mind... (-1)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about 2 months ago | (#47209039)

Where the fuck are your mod points when you need them? Someone mod this guy funny...
Ironically, on the other hand, I always have mod points when I feel no need to use them. Such a dumb setup.

Re:Somewhere in my mind... (3, Funny)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 months ago | (#47209151)

Such a dumb setup.

Not as dumb as paying more per gigabyte of RAM on your Cisco server for the privilege of paying more per gigabyte of RAM and Gigabit of network bandwidth on your Oracle software so you can pay extra for the ports on your Cisco network switch. With mandatory support contracts all 'round.

Oh God (2)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 months ago | (#47209263)

Now they are both going to sue me for the slander of associating each with the other. They'll probably both win too, and have to sue each other over fractions of my soul. But the judge will be in on it and award both the same soul three times each.

In that case (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47208965)

I will continue not buying Cisco's products.

Re:In that case (-1, Troll)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | about 2 months ago | (#47209159)

Fortunately, you don't buy Cisco products, and, thankfully, you don't design the roads, which in your world would have pedestrians, bicyclists, cars, and airplanes all driving down the same road.

Re:In that case (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47209237)

Fortunately, you don't buy Cisco products, and, thankfully, you don't design the roads, which in your world would have pedestrians, bicyclists, cars, and airplanes all driving down the same road.

Which would be fine if they all went the same speed like traffic does on the internet. Your analogy only fits if you are under the misunderstanding that different types of internet traffic goes at different speeds, it doesn't, but that's what Cisco and all the other net neutrality opposers want it to do.

Re:In that case (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47209369)

lol all foockin moron losers know jack aboot foockin networkin. go back to yer fookin video gaymes you fookin loser.

Re:In that case (5, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | about 2 months ago | (#47209403)

Don't confuse quality-of-service in general for anti-net-neutrality in particular.

Cisco is technically correct in that real-time or near-real-time services need higher priority than data transfers that don't need real-time synchronization or timing. If I'm watching a live TV program I need the network traffic carrying that program to get to me correctly, in real time, or watching the program live doesn't work. If I'm surfing the Internet to use web forums, mild reductions in performance won't really impact my experience. I do not have a problem with an ISP attempting to shape its traffic to give priority to content requiring real-time capability.

Opposing "Net Neutrality" seems to be opposite-ville to me. I see the goal of ending net neutrality being for ISPs to force payment from large real-time content providers in order to keep that content flowing with enough priority to make watching it practical. Even though the customer is already paying for enough bandwidth to receive everything if the ISP doesn't intentionally break it.

Re:In that case (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47210005)

A live TV program is a really bad example. If server-side has a backlog of a few seconds, they can burst it to you. You now get a responsive experience (the playback starts without waiting for a buffer) and a buffer that allow your stream to be nicer on the QoS. You should have picked something where two-way synchronisation is really relevant, like a phone call or low-latency games.

Re:In that case (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 months ago | (#47210007)

Opposing "Net Neutrality" seems to be opposite-ville to me. I see the goal of ending net neutrality being for ISPs to force payment from large real-time content providers in order to keep that content flowing with enough priority to make watching it practical. Even though the customer is already paying for enough bandwidth to receive everything if the ISP doesn't intentionally break it.

Some customers are on the lowest tier while others pay more money for priority access. The big "net neutrality" lie is the omission of this basic fact while insisting that some entities should not be able to pay for priority access on the very networks that we ourselves pay extra to have priority access on.

Yeah, ISP's like comcast shouldn't be allowed to throttle their video service competition out of existence, but the solution isnt hypocritical feel-good bullshit that is completely blind to the consequences.

I prefer (5, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 months ago | (#47208973)

I prefer my bits non optimized than someone else deciding how they should be "optimized" for me. Thank you!

Re:I prefer (2, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | about 2 months ago | (#47208993)

I don't think a lot of people would agree with you. People don't want 3-second beats [orain.org] inserted into their video calls.

Re:I prefer (4, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 months ago | (#47209031)

Sure, but they don't have 3 second latency now and they won't have it ever if the ISPs invest the necessary amount of money in infrastructure. Japan and Korea ISPs do...

I would rather prefer to open the market to anyone who wants to provide the service without unnecessary restrictions as government concessions. Failing that I can be satisfied with legislation that forces the providers to offer a service of reasonable quality to the user as a condition to their concessions.

Density Myth. . . (4, Interesting)

wardred (602136) | about 2 months ago | (#47209251)

Except that even where U.S. city/suburb densities are as high or higher than said small country, internet access still sucks. This probably accounts for %60-%80 of the U.S. population. (Maybe not E. Asia, but certainly a good chunk of Europe.)

Other things small countries can do that may be more difficult for the U.S. to do:
1 - Have a true national plan for rolling out internet, rather than Country, State, County, Municipality, Neighborhood, and Individual plans. (Individuals in this case being people who object, maybe with some merit, to unsightly telco boxes on or near their property and do something about it, messing up the plan, either requiring the telco box to be moved or for them to go through city planners and/or court to get permission to place the box on the person's property.)
2 - Dictate how the internet is going to be rolled out. Similar to 1, but not quite the same. Possibly have "country wide" municipal broadband, with individual providers riding off of state owned infrastructure.
3 - Not deal with U.S. Corporate lobbyists. It seems we have world class corporate lobbying. Our lobbyists are so strong that they can convince us the price we're paying for Internet, Health Care, Cell Service, pick your overpriced product is as good or better than the rest of the world, that the reduced service we often receive along with the high prices is really better than the rest of the world, and that all the multiple ways we pay our ISPs to improve their infrastructure, through taxes, directly through our internet bills, through "back door deals" like Netflix paying both their ISP and the end user's ISP to deliver content will actually improve much of anything. (The latter seems to have, but only because that one entertainment provider has paid to improve that one service on that one monolithic ISP.)
4 - Laying down new infrastructure rather than dealing with a hodgepodge of existing infrastructure. This one is actually pretty important. Especially since some of that old infrastructure - land lines - are something ISPs/telcos are still federally mandated to maintain. . . unless this has recently changed. Also, they may have more uniform wiring, and access to that wiring, in their larger buildings.

Re:Density Myth. . . (5, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 months ago | (#47209445)

Population density is why we don't have gigabit fiber to tiny little rural towns in the middle of nowhere like Ephrata, WA (pop 7000). No, wait. They have had gigabit fiber to the home since 2001. Back when that cost a metric boatload of money. And yet the network made an embarassingly large profit they had to pay back to their customers because they are a nonprofit. How is that even possible?

It is possible because your density story is a lie. It is made up. There is no truth to it. If Ephrata, and even smaller towns in that county, can have gigabit at a reasonable price 14 years ago then we all can now. The tech is 100x cheaper now. There is no excuse for not fibering up the whole country.

Re:Density Myth. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47209853)

Profit comes from having a monopoly of low bandwidth users to which you can oversubscribe the line.

Re:Density Myth. . . (1)

wardred (602136) | about 2 months ago | (#47209905)

I think we're on the same page. Even where ISPs can't claim that density is an issue - New York, San Francisco, etc. - the internet is still craptastic for large swaths of those citys' populations.

. . .

The real costs aren't in the last mile wiring, though these costs are real and substantial. In older cities like New York new wiring can require some ingenuity to work around the lack of space for it in old buildings. Even with those costs, the real money sinks are bureaucratic. Getting approval on the city, county, and state level, and sometimes the individual land or building owner can take time and cost quite a bit of money. . . but nowhere near what the company will earn once the wiring is in place. A lot of those bureaucratic costs go down in smaller countries where their equivalent to the federal government says "it shalt be done THIS WAY" for the whole country, which is probably more common in Asia than in Europe. Even in many countries in Europe you don't have the mess of overlapping approvals you have in the U.S. This totally ignores legislation that's in place that rigs it for the incumbent, like state wide bans on municipal ISPs and exclusive franchises for wide swaths of land. Granted one doesn't want every ISP startup to run their own wiring. . . but somehow the directives for the ISPs to allow line sharing to other ISPs haven't worked out well for the little guys. . . and the big ISPs don't seem keen on letting municipalities run their own wiring and leasing it out to whoever wants to pay for it.

Of course, if ISPs have existing infrastructure, and it's selling for a goodly fraction of what they're planning on charging for fiber or other modern solutions, what great incentive do ISPs have to hurry up and spend money to roll out new infrastructure when they can sit on their exclusive franchises and the old stuff and make obscene amounts of money? Or when they can charge service providers, like Netflix, for "fast lanes"?

ARS has a nice write up on the mess Verizon is making of their fiber deployment in NY. With more oversight, which would increase costs, some of Verizon's wiring mess probably wouldn't happen. Heck, if N.Y. just rolled out the fiber and leased it to whoever, including end users, the cost over time would probably be lower, and the job might end up being done better. But this would be unfair competition. . .

Re:Density Myth. . . (-1, Troll)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 2 months ago | (#47209989)

Ah, right, Ephrata, WA where the population is 1.3% African-American [city-data.com] . Yeah, stuff like that is easy to do in lily-white towns where everyone agrees because there is no diversity. Take your bullshit and stick it up your ass where it belongs, racist.

Re:I prefer (1)

TWX (665546) | about 2 months ago | (#47209429)

I have a choice of two companies for consumer-grade high-speed Internet in my area. One is the phone company, the other is the cable TV company. They don't really compete with each other in the sense that I cannot get the same speed from both.

Back when the common-carrier thing applied to DSL, I had my DSL line through the phone company, but my account was through an ISP. The DSLAM pointed me to that ISP in the CO, instead of to the phone company's network. That arrangement suited me just fine, as I had a business-grade account with the ISP, and it cost me almost the same for that arrangement with five static IPs and full control over my reverse-resolve as going through the phone company for a residential-grade setup would have.

I think that all physical infrastructure providers need to be common-carrier. Let the consumer decide who provides the account, even if that means that they have to pay a nominal cost for the line.

Re:I prefer (2)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about 2 months ago | (#47208995)

All your bits are belong to Comcast.

I prefer (4, Funny)

gronofer (838299) | about 2 months ago | (#47209103)

I'm not sure that I like having my web pages load slowly so that somebody else can watch Keeping Up With The Kardashians jitter-free.

Re:I prefer (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 months ago | (#47209119)

Then demand from your provider that he provides the service he is selling to you adequately. The fault is not on the video watchers, the fault is on the lack of investment from the provider.

Re:I prefer (4, Insightful)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about 2 months ago | (#47209207)

I'm not sure that I like having my web pages load slowly so that somebody else can watch Keeping Up With The Kardashians jitter-free.

And without net neutrality, those web pages will load even slower unless they are coming from somebody who has given your ISP extortion money (in addition to the money you're already giving them each month) to not slow them down.

Re:I prefer (2)

wardred (602136) | about 2 months ago | (#47209313)

Video and "internet radio" probably doesn't need "jitter free" downloads since, once you have a small buffer, it doesn't matter if it comes in relatively small spits and furts. I.P. calls, teleconferencing, videoconferencing, gaming, and anything that is truly sensitive to latency; however, should have priority. (Gaming is so particular to the game that ISPs wouldn't regulate this, if anybody did, it would be the individual.) Even in big corporate networks at least their phones generally get a lot of attention paid to them so your calls don't sound like you're out in the boonies on a cell phone with 1/2 a bar of reception. Your web pages probably wouldn't download noticeably slower to allow better phone traffic anyway. Certainly that 5G - 150G game download wouldn't matter if it arrived 5 seconds later if it means clearer calls. If web pages are loading noticeably slowly, even with certain services prioritized over others, it's probably for the same reason they're loading slowly without the prioritization: a poorly designed page waiting for that congested banner add to load before displaying the rest of their content. Or a massive number of plugins on a Wordpress page. Or a huge flash only page, etc.

Re:I prefer (5, Insightful)

jargonburn (1950578) | about 2 months ago | (#47209111)

I thought the point wasn't that some bits should/shouldn't be prioritized, but rather that SOURCES shouldn't be prioritized. I'm fine with VoIP traffic being prioritized.
I would take issue with, say, my ISP's VoIP application working fine while delays are introduced to Skype traffic. Prioritizing certain types of traffic make sense and can be provider-agnostic; prioritizing specific companies/sources, however, is chock-full of problems.

Re:I prefer (2, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 months ago | (#47209147)

Realistically you can't have one without the other, and either way it should not be their decision what should be prioritized, they are selling the band, you should be able to use it as you wish and give priority to whatever you feel that deserves it.

Re:I prefer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47209261)

Yes you can. There's an ocean of difference between honoring QoS bits set by external parties and the extortion thing Comcast is doing.

Re:I prefer (0)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 months ago | (#47209551)

Again, to use QoS yourself you don`t need the ISP. You can control the priority of the packages at your on network. Stop spreading disinformation.

Re: I prefer (3, Informative)

bemymonkey (1244086) | about 2 months ago | (#47209247)

This! Cisco doesn't actually oppose net neutrality, just the abolishment of QoS prioritization... but who the hell wanted to get rid of that anyway?

Re:I prefer (5, Interesting)

skids (119237) | about 2 months ago | (#47209303)

It's a giant sticky mess. Many advocates for net neutrality have only a vague idea of how things work so their proposals are vague. Many with the experience to produce more detailed proposals have ulterior motives.

Anyway, if you assume honoring protocol priorities is OK, then you end up with abusive situations where an ISP that runs video protocol 1 can sink traffic from a competitor based on the fact that they use video protocol 2. Add to that that protocols can be patented, and you'd end up with an incentive to create and patent stupid protocols just to do exactly that.

Also there are services whose availability would benefit the customer/public/economy that involve prioritizing packets between privately administered device networks, and not by protocol, and defining the difference between those services and unfair competitive practices leads us down a road to byzantinism.

Really we need to get to a point where end-users can send ToS bits into the network and have them honored as long as they are below a fair usage level for ToS packets, and a certain percent of the network is kept free for best effort, allowing the consumer some level of live control. Before we even do that, though, we need to just move towards "ISPs and other providers must make X% of all built capacity available at a (possibly tariffed) basic rate for public best effort use" and apply that principle across all areas of bandwidth, pps processing power, and -- the toughest sell but very important -- CDN capacity. The cash flow through CDNs really needs to be further regulated to eliminate the perverse incentive of making money off congested pipes on the back end. The restriction on sales of prioritized services in the other 100-X% part of the pipe would provide appropriate incentive for expansion of the entire pipe, benefiting the basic rate users not just the premium arrangements. The X could be adjusted by policy changes until the sweet spot is found or as the ecosystem changes.

Now if the above was TLDR, a solid proposal would be 100x more complicated.

Re:I prefer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47209713)

The problem with quotas on TOS-prioritized traffic is that either it only works for uplinks, or lets an attacker trivially exhaust your downlink quota.
What we need is something like RSVP being widely implemented, but I haven't noticed it mentioned anywhere in these net neutrality discussions.

Re:I prefer (4, Insightful)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 2 months ago | (#47209357)

Ya, this argument feels like an end run to provide an argument for Quality of Service in an attempt to discredit net neutrality, when those are different things.

Re:I prefer (2)

riverat1 (1048260) | about 2 months ago | (#47209523)

This is exactly what I came here to say. Net neutrality doesn't mean giving every kind of packet equal priority but giving every source equal priority.

Re:I prefer (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 months ago | (#47209567)

I think you get it. its not about prioritizing one source over another or even one destination, but more about type of traffic and knowing how delay and jitter-sensitive it is. if you only have so much bandwidth (which is a reality everywhere), then you -have- to sort traffic by type and give prio to the sensitive ones and delay or drop (tcp or the app will do timeout/retries) the ones that won't fit.

cisco sells gear. they make and sell gear that does all kinds of filtering/prioritization and so on. why would they care what one customer does vs another? there are so many use-cases to traffic management, its not really fair to blame the vendor.

and now, with network 'programmability' (sdn) the user (owner) can do all the policy and traffic engineering he wants. you want something custom, you write an app to the api and you 'run' your app on the router/switch. all the vendors are now doing it (or trying to). linux even has that, its called openflow and open-vswitch (amongst others).

Re:I prefer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47209163)

I prefer my bits non optimized than someone else deciding how they should be "optimized" for me. Thank you!

Just like i prefer my democrats without the identity politics and the constantly screamin RACIST at everything bullshit. I can't seem to get all that much assurance of what I want either.

Re:I prefer (1)

dwywit (1109409) | about 2 months ago | (#47209647)

I was surprised to find in the configuration file of my Technicolour (Thomson) ADSL modem, a section already defining QoS, This isn't visible in the browser-accessible UI, but only when you "save" the configuration to a local hard drive, which option is also locked by Bigpong/Telstra unless you run a magic script. Anyway, it defines 6 queues for QoS, and it allocates VOIP traffic to the highest-priority queue, proceeding down the list until queue 5, which is the catch-all. There are various types mentioned, but HTTP, SMTP, and Telnet aren't among them, leading me to believe those protocols end up in queue 5, which is the lowest priority or "best effort" queue. This isn't my specialty, so I may have misinterpreted what it means, but I looked up the manual and it seems to confirm what I read in the config file.

Short version: Your traffic may already be affected by your own modem.

Re:I prefer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47209705)

I should hope so. QoS is part of any router/modem's job. I want my hardware prioritizing VOIP traffic, I don't want anyone's hardware prioritizing, say, Skype traffic differently from other VOIP traffic.

sooooo.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47208979)

in an effort to keep customers after the Snowden leaks... this is your play?

Cisco, how you have fallen, and will continue to do so!

How about not holding back technology as the ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47208981)

... true solution?

Some countries are light years ahead of others in terms of Internet connectivity, speeds, etc.
Don't hold back technology - make it affordable and accessible to the public. Advance the civil Internet connectivity via governments(?) so all could benefit and such stupid suggestions like Jeff Campbell's, or "fast lanes" won't be needed to begin with? Maybe?

Re:How about not holding back technology as the .. (1)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 2 months ago | (#47209115)

While I agree that fast lanes should not be needed, just as they don't seem to be needed today (how many times the definition of the human eye does HD need to be, anyway?) it's important to understand that smaller countries can achieve faster internet speeds more easily due to their relatively small real estate. The number one factor affecting latency is distance, and the US has a lot of ground to cover.

That doesn't mean Comcast and TWC aren't still screwing us when they "do not compete against each other in any area" [comcast.com] (direct quote).

Of course (3, Insightful)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about 2 months ago | (#47208987)

This means Comcast & TWC will be purchasing more network equipment from Cisco. They won't upgrade infrastructure to deliver better service, but they'll happily buy equipment that prioritizes traffic (slows down traffic coming from non-paying sources) for the purpose of double dipping by charging both you and Netflix/Amazon/Google/etc.

Re:Of course (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47209051)

Don't be ridiculous. Every network hardware supplier has QoS for their customers. What Cisco describes here, makes sense: some protocols are more urgent than others.

What does not make sense is crap like Comcast is pulling: "Oh, these guys using HTTP didn't pay me more, but the other guys using HTTP did -- guess I'll have to employ some mafia tactics!"

Please don't mix these two cases up...

Re:Of course (0)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 months ago | (#47209095)

It is impossible not to mix the two cases if you open Pandora box. Sure you can use QoS inside your network, but Comcast or any other provider has no right to control your flux. They sell the band, you use it as you please and control it as you please.

Re:Of course (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47209275)

They're not nearly the same thing. Don't confuse them because that's exactly how the ISPs want to win this war: By misinformation and propaganda.

The difference is that QoS bits are set *at the source* by you, or Netflix or your VoIP provider. They are then honored by your ISP. That's perfectly OK because you're telling them how you want your traffic to be prioritized.

What they want to do is prioritize traffic by their own rules. That's a totally different thing.

Re:Of course (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 months ago | (#47209543)

QoS may be controlled by you, but that may be made in your internal network without any influence of the ISP. There is no motive to involve ISPs on that.

Re: Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47209201)

And Cisco just happens to make expensive equipment that can tell the difference. Once we change the
Laws to allow ISPS to choose whatever protocols they want... (Wink, nudge)

Re:Of course (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 2 months ago | (#47209253)

Yes its been sold as an ISP with good dedicated national and backhaul having settings for their users VOIP. Sounds great, the ISP branded VOIP gets a boost over email, games, video streaming.
The problem with this is what all the other providers will offer: your ISP, blog/web 2.0 host, video streaming, game drm platform will all offer to do the same for a few $ per month.
Every host, game site and portal will be on the slow as email default packet settings until you pay up per day, week, month, year...
How many times will the average user have to pay for, rent and upgrade for access to the internet?
Will a web designer have to pay for the fast site? Will an artist have to pay for the fast site? If the users do not pay for the fast site?

Re:Of course (1)

dgourlay (1380435) | about 2 months ago | (#47209277)

I am not sure I completely 'get' your argument here on the Comcast piece.

Traditionally Comcast would get paid by end users for access, and Comcast would buy service from a Tier-1 ISP. Netflix would get paid by end users for their content and they would also buy service from a Tier-1 ISP. Netflix could also distribute their service by pushing their content to a CDN who also paid for their access to either Comcast, TWC, Verizon, etc (you don't think Akamai and Limelight get their access for free do you)

Old Model: User >>>$$>>> Comcast >>>$$>>> T1 ISP >>$$>>> Content
Distributed Old Model User >>>$$>>> Comcast >>$$>>> Content
Direct Peering Model User >>>$$>>> Comcast >>$$>>> Content

I fail to see why you are so upset that Comcast and Netflix have eliminated the middle-man here. Netflix drove enough bandwidth to find CDNs very expensive and to find that the performance through their T1 ISPs was not only cost prohibitive but also had challenges with service quality. Comcast had enough users and a large enough backhaul network on their own to be able to offer a direct peering model into local markets for less than Netflix was paying their CDN provider + T1 ISP before as a percentage of number of users served via Comcast. Comcast won't need anywhere near as much connectivity from their CDN customers that supported Netflix (and were paid by Netflix) so that revenue stream actually goes away. (why is no one upset about poor CDN players in this!)

On the flip side to the first point made by NoKaOi above Cisco has always been a strong advocate against Net Neutrality - primarily because it drives requirements for more intelligent devices in the network that can do exactly what you are saying - prioritize certain traffic types ahead of others. Whether that is the hypothetical and altruistic sounding examples Cisco used or the more pragmatic 'Bob pays more than Bill, give Bob better service' (which does sort of seem to be the way the world works in most other areas - I know if I buy the 55Mb burst service I sure would like to get a better service level than the guy down the street not buying it...) or the more nefarious examples that everyone likes to also throw out: Our cable company owns a media company that produces TV programming - so we are going to de-prioritize competing programs so that their service level makes them darn near unusable versus keeping our own TV programming at such a high bit rate that its service level is great and it becomes the preferred show you watch - not because the content is better but because the performance/viewing experience is.

From everything I have read here this last one is the one that has everyone worried and 'up in arms' about Net Neutrality. Its also, as a fairly experienced network engineer, very very very difficult, borderline impossible, to accomplish. If you've ever looked at the configurations on those big, fast, routers in the core of networks like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc, or the PE boxes at the edge of the carrier networks you will find that no device can and no network engineer wants to administer or ever implement and a policy that tries to identify a specific piece of content and de-prioritizes it. Simply put the TCAM based forwarding architectures in the large routers do not have the depth of inspection in them to identify a specific piece of streaming content and increase its priority over another.

Compounding the absolute impracticality of the argument is that most content shops use CDNs. So if I was a cable MSO I would probably have a nice tertiary income stream by selling some of my network resources to a CDN provider: this gets me a little bit of $, and means I don't have to go through a cost center Tier-1 ISP link to get those, usually rather large data streams, to my customers so everyone kinda wins. But if I then wanted to identify specific media traffic or a specific program coming from a competing site - lets say as a Cable MSO I found that 'Hannity and Colmes' was a show that we hated, was getting watched too much in our market, and we wanted people to watch our version of right-leaning news - I would have to do the following:

1) Identify the streaming media traffic sourced from Fox that was the specific 'Hannity and Colmes' show being streamed

This is harder than it sounds: Many streaming media systems use a well known tCP port for the session control but then use a relatively random UDP port for the live streaming or a separate TCP session for the actual content delivery in an on-demand model. Also no-where in the packet headers is the actual program identified unless its in the URL of the initial request which is not in subsequent packets and may also only be in the control channel.

2) Parse all the traffic going to and from my CDN partner to try an dal so identify 'Hannity and Colmes' - since they use redirected HTTP requests, customer coded URLs, and custom coded DNS - this is about impossible.

3) Now if I wanted I suppose I could put a customer 'gateway' in front of every customer or group of them that terminated their SSL packets, somehow spoofing the end site and tracking every URL in a full proxy mode and then running a deep packet inspection engine to look for all URL combinations that look lie they could be 'Hannity and Colmes' while also employing a team of people to monitor Fox's site for any URL or name changes and then keep this policy updated at every CO/Headend on every gateway.

While #3 is probably the most realistic way to actually solve this you also have to accept that a device that does this level of inspection, de-cryption/re-encryption, and has the traffic management capabilities costs well over $100k for a 10Gb performance. It also violates about every principle and tenet of cryptography and would be flagged by your browser in about 1/10th of a second as a man-in-the-middle since it wouldn't have the key for fox.com. But even assuming in fantasy-land where that didn't matter and was possible you are not looking at an aggregate costs of millions of dollars of CAPEX, a team of network engineers, and a team of content monitoring folks simply to make a show 'Hannity and Colmes' suck more than it already does... let's be frank... it doesn't need a Cable MSO's help to suck any more - its doing fine on its own! (it also happens to be economically unfeasible)

dg

Re:Of course (1)

dgourlay (1380435) | about 2 months ago | (#47209439)

Somehow in editing/HTML-izing my table got messed up, corrected version below:

Old Model: User pays Comcast who pays T1 ISP who is paid by Netflix who pays for Content
Distributed Old Model: User pays Comcast who is paid by CDN who is paid by Netflix who pays for Content
Direct Peering Model: User pays Comcast who is paid by Netflix who pays for Content


dg

Re: Of course (1)

msoftsucks (604691) | about 2 months ago | (#47209455)

I guess you have not be looking at the news. A bank robber was idententified using facial recognition. Such systems are getting better and better each day and function in real time. Put such a system in the middle, capture, render and identify people in show and 30 seconds after show starts screw around with performance. If you think this is science fiction, think again. This is here and now. Abolishment of net-neutrality is just another way to tax and control us so that we can offer no resistance to corporate domination.

Re:Of course (1)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about 2 months ago | (#47209479)

Its also, as a fairly experienced network engineer, very very very difficult, borderline impossible, to accomplish.

Is it really that difficult to slow down all traffic except traffic coming from a list of IP addresses that are paying you off? Comcast didn't seem to have a problem throttling Netflix for a few months until Netflix paid up. Also, if you wanted to target video streaming, wouldn't it be easy to specify after X bits or Y packets then slow it down? That would obviously cover more than just video, but would be most noticeable to most people with video. You can start there and get more intelligent, and as you get more intelligent, the shinier the equipment you'll want to buy from Cisco. You really don't need to do MiTM to come up with a good extortion scheme.

its a shame... (5, Insightful)

johnsnails (1715452) | about 2 months ago | (#47208991)

Its a shame they don't have a vested interest in hardware capable of making such a thing possible.

At my own peril (0)

ssufficool (1836898) | about 2 months ago | (#47208997)

I would have to agree with them. I can wait a few milliseconds more for an web page packet, but my Netflicks pausing to buffer is not OK. This isn't a net neutrailty argument, it's quality of service (QOS) scheduling. I'm of the belief that net neutrality is ISPs not actively throttling traffic based on the sender, receiver or protocol. If a packet gets delayed a millisecond, but the net throughput is the same, I;m not really going to notice.

Re:At my own peril (3, Insightful)

rtb61 (674572) | about 2 months ago | (#47209083)

Always read the fine print, in this case pay attention to way he says. Slight delay, now what does that really mean. Like email, is the slight delay a reference to postal services, or the electronic transfer of data, so milli seconds or minutes to complete.

I pay for bandwidth, I expect that bandwidth to be usable, what I do with that bandwidth as long as it is within the law is up to me not the providers choice. I do not accept the ISP monitoring, controlling and censoring my. I do not accept the ISP crippling my choices of content suppliers in preference for their own. I do not accept my ISP to purposefully crippling the services of companies who do not contract with them in preference for those that do.

It is obvious laws are required to protect the provision of services to ensure anti-competitive monopolistic tactics can not be used to artificially inflate profit margins.

Re:At my own peril (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 2 months ago | (#47209305)

Think of the average peering deals with new side speed clauses. Not just a dedicated line or bandwidth or best effort but the correct settings for that interconnect between telco monopolies and cartels. Your local ISP will have to pay to get out of the US, into the US, get out of the EU, into the EU, Asia, Africa, South America....
If your regional ISP does not have the right partners at a national level its game over for the users until extra cash flows.

Re:At my own peril (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 months ago | (#47209325)

...what I do with that bandwidth as long as it is within the law is up to me not the providers choice. I do not accept the ISP monitoring, controlling and censoring my.

You shouldn't accept the state doing it either. The internet is information, don't let the government censor it any more than you would your ISP.

It is obvious laws are required to protect the provision of services to ensure anti-competitive monopolistic tactics can not be used to artificially inflate profit margins.

I suppose you can start with outlawing exclusive franchise contracts to pry open the market for more service providers, including municipal ones. It is also necessary to consider them as common carriers and the internet itself as a public utility.

Re:At my own peril (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47209875)

Ideally all traffic should be encrypted so QoS prioritisation won't have any effect. Of course it's then up to you not to torrent at the same time as making a video call.

Re:At my own peril (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47209197)

I was hoping someone would say this. I didn't read the actual article, but the snippet was highly suggestive that net neutrality had nothing to do with this.

Different bits for different... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47209001)

I'm pretty sure all traffic will be able to go just as fast as it needs to, without anyone paying more for the privilege.

frost p15t (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47209019)

Goals. It's when fo8 eleCtion, I

What About Electricity? (5, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 2 months ago | (#47209023)

Some Web-based applications, including rapidly growing video services, home health monitoring and public safety apps, will demand priority access to the network,

Do health monitoring devices get priority access to electricity? Does the electric company get to decide which devices will be shut down first? Can they shut down your devices before they shut down your neighbor's, because you bought Sony instead of Samsung? Would it be good for the electric company to be allowed to negotiate priority access to electricity with the appliance manufacturers?

Net neutrality is about protecting the more important free market -- the free market in information -- by requiring the carriers to compete only on price and overall performance of their network.

Re:What About Electricity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47209185)

Technically, when it comes to restoring electricity, yes, hospitals would be a priority service. And if there should be a need for brownouts, I would suspect hospitals would get preference too.

But in any sane universe, electric companies that failed in their duty to provide power would be in serious trouble. Which is why the California Electrical crisis was really caused by companies like Enron, not environmental regulation.

Re: What About Electricity? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47209221)

Actually, they do. During the rolling blackout/Enron days of power brokering in CA, critical infrastructure, such as public health and safety, was untouched. This can, and should happen.

Also, you're basic comparison is flawed. Electricity is unaffected by distance, whereas network packets are. For certain application types that are more sensitive to latency, such as voice and video, prioritizing that traffic type over email and http makes sense, and I expect my provider to do that, especially for my voice calls. Prioritizing based on traffic source, however, is evil. And the distinction between those two things is clear and well defined. It is not a slippery slope, or Pandora's box, or whatever other term you want to use. It's just smart.

I still don't like Cisco, though. Just sayin'.

Re:What About Electricity? (0)

vux984 (928602) | about 2 months ago | (#47209235)

Do health monitoring devices get priority access to electricity?

Well, yes, actually, to the extent that its possible. If a storm that knocks the electricity out by taking lines down everywhere, then absolutely the crews should prioritize hospitals.

While the electricity is out, and the hospital is running on batteries and generators, absolutely the health monitoring devices should get priority and the TVs in the break room and waiting areas turned off.

But under normal operations, none of that is required because there is usually enough electricity to satisfy everyone's needs. At least in developed countries.

Re:What About Electricity? (2)

negge (1392513) | about 2 months ago | (#47209881)

Does the electric company get to decide which devices will be shut down first?

When one of the nuclear reactors in Finland had to be powered down unexpectedly about a year ago the grid operators call the biggest electricity consumers and tell them that they have to power down some of their machinery ("You'll have to cut your consumption by 40 MW, right now") so that the rest of the country can keep functioning.

This is absolutely correct (4, Insightful)

williamyf (227051) | about 2 months ago | (#47209035)

The internet had, since IPv4, provisions for exactly this, and whole careers have been built by this. It goes by different names, Type of Services, QoS, Traffic Engineering. IPv6 has also provisions for this, so did ATM in its time. MPLS has a HUUUUGE component of this...

Having said that:

Video on Demand traffic from, say comcast, should have the same priority as video on Demand traffic from youtube or netflix (or some future cash strapped start-up).
Videoconferencing traffic from skype should have the same priority as videoconferencing trafffic from google+ o Cisco (or some future cash strapped start-up).
Web traffic from yahoo should have the same (slighty lower) priority as the web traffic from "mom & pop web server".

You get the drift, not because some big company is willing to pay more, or the ISP wants to double dip you can play with the priorities.

And THAT is net neutrality for y'all!
 

Re:This is absolutely correct (1)

Rick in China (2934527) | about 2 months ago | (#47209061)

Essentially agree, the slippery slope is once prioritization is allowed, the regulation and management of that belongs to _someone_ -- and whomever that is, is going to be highly susceptible to monetary interests. How we control that aspect of prioritisation is the question...

Mod parent up. (1)

bussdriver (620565) | about 2 months ago | (#47209105)

Exactly. We keep having debates framed by PR firms and their $$$ so we avoid the real issues and get stuck into weaker positions. Net Neutrality doesn't make phones(SIP) equal to crappy video streaming (http.) Actually we should be yelling at network admins fire walling everything outside port 80! netflix should be using rstp or something identifiable as video streaming- their abuse of http should be the reason their service has troubles not because comcast is into extortion.

Re:This is absolutely correct (2)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 2 months ago | (#47209477)

The internet had, since IPv4, provisions for

Only small 'i' internets.

exactly this, and whole careers have been built by this. It goes by different names, Type of Services, QoS, Traffic Engineering. IPv6 has also provisions for this, so did ATM in its time. MPLS has a HUUUUGE component of this...

By all means prioritize intra-domain traffic within an organization. This makes sense and is widely deployed as you point out.

None of this has ever worked inter-domain on a big "I" Internet of untrustworthy users with competing interests.

Any and all traffic markings will be instantly gamed RFC3514 style reducing to classification based entirely on ownership (shady deals between mega content and mega ISPs) rather than actual need/merit.

This is NOT a net neutrality issue (5, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 2 months ago | (#47209049)

Net neutrality is the idea that data from any provider (rich or poor, powerful company or a single guy, corrupt or honest) is treated the same way on the network.

Cisco's comment concerns the prioritization of data depending on its type. I see nothing wrong with that.

Re:This is NOT a net neutrality issue (1)

mbone (558574) | about 2 months ago | (#47209471)

Mod this parent up. This statement from CIsco has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Re:This is NOT a net neutrality issue (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 2 months ago | (#47209529)

Cisco's comment concerns the prioritization of data depending on its type. I see nothing wrong with that.

Part of our basic jobs working with technology is to fundamentally understand and communicate what is and what is not possible.

When we mark your comment +5 insightful we fail at our jobs assuming Cisco lacks a traffic classification algorithm able to infer intent with superior intelligence to thinking human adversaries unwilling to wait for their slow lane bits to be transmitted over the wire.

We get a kick out of RFC3514 because it is funny. What makes Cisco's idea any less funny?

Re:This is NOT a net neutrality issue (1)

will_die (586523) | about 2 months ago | (#47209689)

However if you go read the bills that have been proposed for net neutrality you will see that ISP that did implement QoS would be breaking the law.
Same as if the ISP were to setup email spam filtering or a school run provider that decided to block out site such as MAMBLA.
All of those actions would be illegal under the majority of Net Neutrality bills.

Unfortunately, we have a problem... (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 months ago | (#47209063)

Architecturally, Cisco's point has merit (aside from being purely an excuse to sell higher-margin fancy-shaping hardware, rather than brutally commodified really-fast-switching hardware). Some applications are more latency sensitive than others.

However, there's a serious complication that Cisco is either ignoring or doesn't have any reason to care about: the mechanisms for doling out 'priority access to the network' and 'slight delays' are more or less target agnostic. There is nothing magic about hypothetical VOIP-911, Granny Accelerometer, or whatnot that makes it easy to identify them as "justified" prioritization and leave everything else alone.

If you have the system set up to promote and demote traffic based on type, origin, destination, (or any similar set of parameters sufficient to plausibly identify 'important' traffic, rather than just basic TCP congestion behavior), you can promote and demote whatever you feel like writing rulesets for. Given that the last-mile is pretty much buttoned up by a cozy oligopoly of incumbent telco and cable outfits, does anybody seriously expect the shaping to stop at making sure those 'public safety apps' get the message out in time, rather than paying lip service to ensuring that 911 calls go through and then moving on to the actually profitable business of chopping the internet up and attempting to reach optimum price discrimination and suppress competition?

So, barring major changes in the competitive landscape, or some sort of regulation-indistinguishable-from-magic, agreeing with Cisco on architectural grounds;but still rejecting the idea on the balance, is a perfectly cogent position(you can argue that it isn't correct; but it's not contradictory): Yes, traffic prioritization will allow better performance of latency sensitive applications (if they are in fact prioritized) all else being equal. However, once you have the architecture in place for that, the economic incentives to go nuts with it are absurdly compelling. By comparison, 'just grow your way out of it' isn't architecturally elegant; but it provides a nice, aligned, incentive for ISPs to build out and people who want more performance to buy fatter pipes, rather than for ISPs to let the infrastructure rot and focus on squeezing every penny out of every user.

Re:Unfortunately, we have a problem... (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 2 months ago | (#47209373)

The problem is every huge block of telco cartel or monopoly will want a cut. As a small or regional ISP you pay off the local monopoly for the fast lane but then the other side of the nation feels slow too. How many telco cartel or monopoly like zones does a smaller ISP have to pay to get the fast lane? Just the east and west coast for now?

Re:Unfortunately, we have a problem... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 months ago | (#47209435)

I'm assuming that it will resemble medieval Europe's complex webs of hierarchical feudal obligation, generally dismal infrastructure, and incredibly intricate patchwork of borders and fiefdoms.

Except with more lawyers, omnipresent surveillance, ubiquitous targeted advertising, and probably some sort of XML-based "Shakedown description language" for efficient automated squeezing of individuals and dependent companies by expert systems that continuously adjust the network's throttling behavior to maximize the expected willingness to pay of the target...

Have a nice day.

Re:Unfortunately, we have a problem... (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 2 months ago | (#47209481)

How much for the packets to ride the golden token that does a ring around the nation at full speed?

All on the level (1)

The Slowest Zombie (1591627) | about 2 months ago | (#47209065)

Health monitoring, public safety apps, growing video services. One of these things is not like the others, and yet these companies still insist that they can have a completely fair and unbiased tiered system. I guess we should be thankful that video services is merely considered on par?

Maybe I'm not understanding something.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 months ago | (#47209075)

How does net neturality impact QOS in IPv6?

I mean, if you aren't allowed to give some packets higher priority, then doesn't that make the whole point of getting a quality of service guarantee moot?

Re:Maybe I'm not understanding something.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47209293)

Nobody is talking about not honoring the QoS field. They are talking about enforcing rules saying the ISPs can't make up their *own* rules about how stuff should be prioritized, and especially not depending on which company that manufactured the bits that's going through their pipes.

Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47209085)

Now I know which company to avoid in the future, thanks Cisco!

Of course they don't! (1)

carlos92 (682924) | about 2 months ago | (#47209101)

Net neutrality doesn't help them sell their very expensive hardware.

Well. . . (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47209109)

If you're doing anything as critical as home-based life support system monitoring and you're literally trusting your life to your ISP, then you're already well past the point of screwed.

Cisco and Self-interest (3, Insightful)

Jack9 (11421) | about 2 months ago | (#47209139)

Wait, Cisco wants to support a new network paradigm that would result in a market for new hardware, worldwide? This is America where lobbying new product lines into existence, is routine.

QOS != NetNutrality (2)

tonywestonuk (261622) | about 2 months ago | (#47209273)

nuff said.

Jeff Campbell? Never heard of him. (0)

whois (27479) | about 2 months ago | (#47209289)

Vice president of whatever... not an engineer. I read one of his letters to a congressional committee and it seems obvious that either he is a lawyer or had it drawn up by Cisco's legal council.

In other words this guy has never used a router.
This person has no idea how the Internet works.

He shouldn't be speaking about things he doesn't understand. Cisco had some good engineers who I really respect, with a few still working for them. If someone with enable wants to speak up in favor of a stupid policy that every operator knows is a bad idea then I might listen.

Surprised (2)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 2 months ago | (#47209347)

Who would have thought Cisco prefers the world attempt to deploy foolish and hopelessly complex inter-domain prioritization schemes requiring $$$$$$ Cisco solutions to implement?

Encrypted World? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47209355)

In an encrypted world, outside of designating port usage and everyone respecting it (which I envision entities like Netflix doing), how would you differentiate different types of traffic?

Frankly, net neutrality is the *only way* as networks get more opaque.

TWC is already screwing customers using fast lanes (3)

msoftsucks (604691) | about 2 months ago | (#47209365)

I have a customer who is currently with Time Warner Cable and their speeds have gone down significantly over the last 6 months. They used to be able to access web sites with split-second response times. Now the average is at least 5 seconds before a web page comes up. I have placed numerous support calls, they come out and run their own hosted speed test which claims they are meeting speeds. They then leave saying there is nothing wrong, yet browsing is almost unusable. I believe they have QoS turned on so that their own speed tests run fine, yet the overall browsing experience is significantly worse. If they are playing these games now, what will happen when net-neutrality is eventually abolished by these big souless corporations?

Abuse of the internet architecture (3, Insightful)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about 2 months ago | (#47209371)

This is abusing the internet architecture. The whole idea is that services don't rely on speed and delivery, but work with the network architecture to ensure that whatever service they provide is able te deal with delays. This means that if ISPs want happy customers and companies want their internet product to work properly, they have to ensure that there's enough room on the entire network to deliver those services adequately.

Now some company that sells equipment that can prioritize packets of certain services so network providers can get away with saturating the data links more starts flipping the principle of the internet around. Sorry, no, that's not the *internet* you are talking about Cisco. That's a private network in which some company gets to say what they think is important.

Every individual company owning a network will have different priorities. Try connecting thousands of private networks with different priorities and different technologies to achieve those and make that work. This is what Cisco is proposing we do to the internet and it will be a pain to try it and chances that it will ever work are close to zero. Part of why the internet works is because we have a global goal of just routing packets without prejudice. Don't mess with that, it will end in tears, unhappy customers and only a few rich C level executives at router producing companies.

Would not work (1)

Danielsen (1180609) | about 2 months ago | (#47209393)

I see two problems: 1) How should the high priority/premium flag be controlled ? The ISP can't know the technical requirements of all services, i.e. they don't know if a certain special designed Machine to Machine communication needs low latency.If the ISP charges low latency, then they would categories certain traffic as latency critical, in order to charge more. If the software it self can open the connection in a 'premium mode', then applications might do this secretly in order to generate a revenue stream to its developers. If this have to work, then the one paying the internet bill need to decide if he wants to pay the premium for a given traffic. The one paying is not necessary the one using the computer/tablet, this could be a kid unknowingly to parents approving a 'premium' service. 2) The ISP starts to degrade performance of non-premium trafic. The argument of the ISP would be that: since a connection is not paying for low latency/high throughput, then we will throttle the connection, even if the infrastructure of the ISP has not reached the limit.

Stuff and nonsense. (2)

kheldan (1460303) | about 2 months ago | (#47209519)

If there's sufficient bandwidth for everyone then net neutrality won't be a problem now will it? Either someone light a fire under these goddamn ISPs and make them stop stalling on upgrading shit, or force them to stop lying to their customers about how much bandwidth they're actually paying for. Also Cisco is a shit company and can go fuck themselves.

Title is a bit sensationalist... (5, Interesting)

Drakonblayde (871676) | about 2 months ago | (#47209557)

Of course a network vendor is going to point out that some packets needs preferential treatment over others. It's something they've worked to engineer into their product lines because their customers demand the capability to do so. For an ISP, 911 VoIP packets are a much higher priority than World of Warcraft packets.

Too many folks are caught up in the idea that prioritization is bad. There's a difference between between the philosophy of Network Neutrality and the operational reality of packet prioritization.

Saying Cisco opposes Net Neutrality just because they're pointing out some simple truths on how network operate today is like saying Glock supports terrorism just because they make guns.

Of course, if the title weren't sensational, no one would probably read it.

It saddens me that Slashdot seems to have decided that they need to resort to the same tactics as the National Enquirer

Re:Title is a bit sensationalist... (2)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 2 months ago | (#47209607)

Too many folks are caught up in the idea that prioritization is bad. There's a difference between between the philosophy of Network Neutrality and the operational reality of packet prioritization.

There is a difference between intra-domain and inter-domain prioritization and the operational futility of the latter.

It saddens me that Slashdot seems to have decided that they need to resort to the same tactics as the National Enquirer

In this case they are warranted. Cisco's statements cannot possibly be applied to the real world without picking winners and losers.

That's alright Cisco... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 months ago | (#47209589)

I oppose you and your products, I don't use them at home. And I use your competitors products when I do professional work.

Nobody here ever heard of bandwidth? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47209685)

Why would you need QOS and traffic shaping if you have adequate bandwidth? Thats what we pay for. We are already paying for them to deliver VIOP or streaming video by paying for the bandwidth. If the provider can't deliver what they sold, thats not the end users problem, its the provider's problem. But once I pay for high bandwidth that guarantees my VOIP and all the other stuff they want to prioritize, why should I pay more? I"VE ALREADY PAID THE EXTRA CHARGES!!!! They want to just make you pay more for everything. Its as simple as that.

Just provide the FSCKing bandwidth you sold me you FSCKing bastards!

derp derp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47209733)

DERP DERP don't regulate. Don't say THIS is approved and THAT isn't. Allow the market to do exactly what it's best at - make a choice.

please buy more equipment (1)

nomad63 (686331) | about 2 months ago | (#47209829)

Please, but pretty-please, buy more traffic-shapers from us. Otherwise we are coming to the end of the road with nplain old network gear. We need to peddle more stuff. what a bunch of self serving idiots.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>