×

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!

Neutral Net Needs Twice the Bandwidth of Tiered

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the we'll-need-to-craft-fewer-packets-overall dept.

The Internet 271

berberine writes with a link to Ars Technica, straight to an article discussing the differences between a net neutral internet and one that supports tiers of content. As you might imagine, our neutral internet is far more bandwidth-intensive; AT&T estimates it might require as much as twice the bandwidth of a tiered internet. From the article: "Corporate sponsorship of research doesn't automatically invalidate that research; what's needed is a close look at the actual results to determine if they were done correctly. According to David Isenberg, a long-time industry insider and proponent of 'dumb' (neutral) networks, the research itself is fine. In his view, it's simply obvious that a dumb network will require more peak capacity than a managed one. But extending that banal observation to make the claim that running a managed network is cheaper is, to Isenberg, not at all intuitive. For one thing, doubling the peak volume of a network does not mean spending twice as much money as it cost to build the original network."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

271 comments

And (5, Insightful)

Umbral Blot (737704) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812059)

And sometimes it is worth pursuing an outcome that is not maximally effecient for other reasons, a fact that people seem to overlook sometimes. So what if the internet is half as fast as it could be; that is an acceptable trade-off for a free and open internet.

No More Bandwidth for Zheng Xiaoyu (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19812137)

China executes top official [globaltics.net].

Almost on Topic: Globaltics WORSE than Goatse! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19812221)

Didn't know it was possible but you just passed up goatse on my annoying-o-meter. And you're rapidly approaching the GNAA ...

Re:And (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812171)

And sometimes it is worth pursuing an outcome that is not maximally effecient for other reasons, a fact that people seem to overlook sometimes.

Yeah, like the services provided by those that can't afford to bribe AT&T don't choked off! Even if they do bribe AT&T, if they don't bribe other line carriers, like say, Time Warner and Comcast (or whoever owns the wires), then AT&T's bandwidth is still going to be lower because of the choked traffic coming off the other lines. Traffic is only going to be as fast as the slowest segment.

Re:And (1)

Retric (704075) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813327)

Bandwidth is cheep, fiber is cheep, networks are cheep and they are only getting cheaper.

The silly thing is all this network neutrality talk / bribery has cost the AT&T / Cox / etc more than doubling the current available US network backbone would. Ahh well let the old system rot and soon enough new players are going to take over.

Re:And (5, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812213)

Even then, let's suppose you were willing to accept a tiered Internet. How you tier makes a difference in whether it is maximally efficient for a given application. The reason we used managed networks in a corporate environment is because of corporate priorities -- financial transactions are more important than e-mail, so we segment off financial transactions and then give those transactions that must run over the same network as e-mail a higher priority over the e-mail, for instance.

The question is: How do we decide what traffic is more important on the Internet? Who pays? Who pays more? That's stupid. The benefits of a a free and open Internet far outweigh the inefficiencies of working with a basically unmanaged network. (Not that the Internet actually is completely unmanaged -- that's just not true. ISPs shape traffic on their own networks to improve customer connectivity to mail or webservers within the ISP's own network). The point of the Internet is to have a network where anything is possible. Tier it off and you'll make it about as useful as the television networks.

Re: Re:And (5, Insightful)

rnturn (11092) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812517)

The point of the Internet is to have a network where anything is possible.

Heh, heh. I can remember when the phone companies wouldn't allow modems because (it seemed to those of us who used them, anyway) it allowed you to do things that the phone company hadn't thought of. "Sending bits across voice lines? NO! You'll have an expensive leased line installed if you want to do that. And you'll lease equipment from us, too. Or we'll cut off your service!"

Tier it off and you'll make it about as useful as the television networks.

You've hit the nail on the head. That's the model the phone companies are trying to emulate. It explains their ridiculous subscriber plans that include "Content by whoever".

I'm not at all surprised at the difficulty that the phone companies are having with the Internet. They had to be dragged -- kicking and screaming -- into accepting packet switched networks in the first place. My guess is that an entire generation of managers (or two) at these companies need to retire before we'll see anything like a basic understanding of the Internet in these companies' actions.

Re: Re:And (1)

arivanov (12034) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812957)

My guess is that an entire generation of managers (or two) at these companies need to retire before we'll see anything like a basic understanding of the Internet in these companies' actions.

I think you are somewhat mistaken here. They clearly see where the quick revenue opportunity lies in the current internet and this is all they are interested in - quick revenue without any further capex. They have all the understanding required for this one. The fact that it may kill long term revenue opportunities is not really relevant here. They are not interested in that and that has nothing to do with understanding of the internet. It has to do with actual way corporations function today.

Re:And (1)

Sandbags (964742) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813347)

According to studies, the most common traffic on the internet is torrent style P2P network traffic, and movie downloads. Soon we'll also be looking at IPTV as a massive bandwidth source. IPTV absolutely CANNOT be a second tier application or it will never succeed. IPTV being the centerpiece of most large ISP's future are going to have to make sure that traffic is uninterrupted, providing clear and perfect TV viewing (if there's download pauses, buffering, or any other quality issues it will be a billion dollar failure), is their goal. It will get one of the top tiers. Since the second 2 highest uses behind that will be illegal or at least questionable activity, how does ATT propose to limit that without impacting IPTV? Surely a smart hacker will VERY quickly figure out hot to make their traffic look like tier 1 packets, and recompose them client side.

By installing a tiered internet, all ATT will be doing will be to improve the speed of illegal services vs legal, and put everyone else doing business, atm, mail, sms, and other critical time sensitive in one of the worst speed catagories.

Because innovation rules the net, and any packet could be made to look like any content we want, the only way to tier the net is on an IP to IP bases, not packet to packet, and this would amount to a kind of internet segregation where those who want to/can afford to pay more, go faster. A network structured that way will either be ordered dismantled by the courts, or simply have few subscribers where there are other competitive offers.

If it's cheaper to add bandwidth than it is to segregate packets anyway (and adding bandwidth is still a necessity either way), combined with the packet latency issues that would be inherent to a tiered structure (the additional time in ms necessary to analyze a packet before assigning priority), I'm guessing net neutrality will win even if the courts don't stand on our side.

Re:And (3, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813459)

According to studies funded by the Mafiaa, the most common traffic on the internet is torrent style P2P network traffic, and movie downloads.


There, fixed it for you.

Re:And (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812249)

I just don't buy it. A neutral internet would transfer just as many bits as a prioritized one. The only way for a prioritized network to be better is if some of those bits are more important than others. If you assume that, then you're just begging the question.

Re:And (2, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813313)

Some bits are more important. A UDP packet that is part of a RTP session when dropped may result in an unacceptable quality 911 phone call. A TCP packet part of a HTTP session will just get resent.

Re:And (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812259)

Yeah, but you have to be sure you're not just pushing the unfreeness onto another aspect. Let's take the simplest kind of NN, where literally every packet has to be treated the same. (Some people want this. Not necessarily informed people, but whatever.) Then someone can just send packets non-stop, and since they're sending more packet transfer requests (whatever those are called) everyone else has to get in line behind those "dummy" requests. It then becomes a competition to see who can flood the network the most in order to get through. This is sort of similar to the price cap/shortage problem. Keep the price too low, and the good gets rationed by aggressiveness, like a PS3 or Wii at launch.

And take a guess who's best at flooding the internet with data they don't really need to send?

Re:And (5, Insightful)

Saint Fnordius (456567) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812371)

To put it differently, unmanaged traffic where the drivers get to decide which road they use themselves is less efficient than a traffic net where a central authority dictates to you which highway you're allowed to take. Of course an unmanaged net needs more throughput capacity overall, but in exchange the traffic doesn't require micromanaging. Part of why highways and trucks beat out rail service is because of that flexibility, of not being at the mercy of the switching stations and schedules.

Or consider an irrigation network with multiple sources and multiple outlets. You could either build all the pipes so that any of them could deliver maximum capacity, or have workers actively controlling the valves to distribute the water across the entire net so that one side doesn't overload. The latter solution doesn't require as robust a pipe, but requires a more complex valve system and somebody controlling it.

Re:And (4, Insightful)

datapharmer (1099455) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812689)

That's a horrible analogy - It just doesn't hold up. The trains are actually far more efficient than highways as a system, but since the U.S. spends more on cleaning roadkill of the highways than total funding for Amtrak they don't have enough staff or working trains so things get off schedule which causes the entire system to break. Just because the U.S. can't manage a switched system doesn't mean it is bad... try telling someone in France that the highway is faster and more efficient than the train!

Unmanaged networks are inefficient and pointless. There is no damage in routing things to avoid network congestion, but tiered networks are bad too. A tiered network is like a toll road that has restricted carpool type lanes, but the number of passengers doesn't matter - how much you pay in tolls does.

Re:And (3, Interesting)

aaronl (43811) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813259)

Trains and highway have different efficiencies, though. A train is an excellent way to move a lot of something a long distance. Highways are excellent for non-linear, lowest time transit, or local distribution. I couldn't take a train to my home, for example. I would need to take a taxi, bus, or personal car to get there from the train station. I couldn't take a train to work, since the time lost getting to the train, getting on the train, getting off the train, and getting from the station to work far exceeds the travel time to just drive.

Going between cities is where trains are the most useful. Moving about inside, or around, a city is where the highways are most needed. Rural areas, and there a lot of them in most every country, still need highways nearly all travel.

The unmanaged system of highways allows for all of the same things as trains, though less efficiently, but also allows for *substantially* more freedom of movement and independence of travel time. The right answer, as it always has been, is to use both.

BTW - it isn't just Amtrak that has problems in the US. Nearly all public transit systems are doing their best to approach complete uselessness. It is still faster and less expensive, for me to own, insure, and operate a car where I live than it is to use public transit. This is in metrowest Massachusetts, for reference. NYC is better, but the subway is still no picnic, and light rail can be hell there, too, but it's still a lot better than driving, usually.

For what it's worth, if rail was the better option in the US, business would use it more. As it turns out, you get more for your money by moving things around with trucks and planes. Transit times are much lower, and you can deal with changes in volume and the need to reroute things much more easily.

Re:And (1)

ghyd (981064) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812379)

"So what if the internet is half as fast as it could be" Is it ? coming from a country where my ISP is very cheap, reliable, honest and has a lot of services (like tivo for free with the providen Adsl set top box, or your free very own TV channel to broadcast whatever you want, free phone calls for 50 countries, etc, etc), with extremely consistent 16mbps down 1mbps up in a town of 40.000, I have never noticed a problem with Internet speed. I don't now much, but isn't this debate just a side effect of the very bad ISP companies that US have? like, "oh, Internet is so bad, where's the problem from? neutrality!" rather than just stupid and unreliable ISPs, who cap everything, don't have a so great technical expertise, and don't even provide the (low) advertised speeds to begin with ?

Re: Bandwidth is cheap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19812499)

That study may make a nice headline, but bandwidth is fairly easy and cheap to provide, the backbones are DWDM with 10Gb/s per Lambda with each fiber strand carrying 40-100 individual lambdas... The bandwidth problem for most US homes is in the last mile, which a tiered architecture isn't going to help.

Re:And (3, Insightful)

jack455 (748443) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812655)

Good post, except the implication you make here: "So what if the internet is half as fast as it could be; that is an acceptable trade-off for a free and open internet."
I even agree with the sentiment, but the study incorrectly implied or stated that doubling the peak capacity would double the costs. Even if that were true, not doubling the peak capacity would _not_ halve the "speed" of the internet. For what it's worth here's a selected quote from Ars quoting Isenberg, commenting on the study.

...
doubling the peak volume of a network does not mean spending twice as much money as it cost to build the original network. "The failure of the authors to extend the conclusions from capacity to raw costs of capacity is deliberately misleading," Isenberg says, "especially when the researchers invoked 'economic viability' and 'cost of capacity' in their introduction to the work." ...
According to Isenberg, the cheapest and best alternative is simply to build out dumb capacity: to "overprovision" by as much as 100 percent.

Re:And (1)

dpilot (134227) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812817)

> that is an acceptable trade-off for a free and open internet.

You make 2 mistakes:
First, that a free and open internet is desirable.
Second, assuming it is desirable, that it's more important than near-term profits.

I certainly wouldn't argue either point with you. In principle and in public, I don't think anyone would either, including government regulators. In practice and in private, I suspect that both arguments are toast.

More like "So?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19812975)

AT&T want more money but they don't want customers to see they're being charged more. So they want to remove Net Neutrality. So they have to call it something else (who would buy "network hegemony"?) so they call it "Tiered service" (forget that selling low/med/hi speed broadband is "tiered"). But people aren't really buying it, so you have to show that this is a good thing.

So show that bandwidth is going to cost 2x as much for NN and you can either justify doubling the cost to the users or justift the Tiered service as "cheaper".

So what would you expect AT&T to do?

"Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 43 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"

Just Because (1)

pentalive (449155) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812993)

Just because it takes 2 x the bandwidth for a neutral network does not mean more infrastructure needs to be built and more cost needs to be expended. Who says we are not currently operating at 1/2 or less of the available bandwidth. What about all that "dark fiber" I've heard so much about??

Re:And (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19812997)

I am confused by the purpose of this whole thing anyway.

Bandwidth is not simply "used" or some arbitrary quantity of data flying around aimlessly. It is a product of end users and computers transferring data that was requested by them. It was requested because the person needs it or wants it. How is tiering or managing the bandwidth going to change what people are doing and what they want to do and see online?

I view this like the distribution of gasoline in America. What ever method we use to distribute gas around the country has no direct effect on the quantity of gasoline we use on a daily basis. Managing the gas distribution process in a more efficient manner does not imply that people will use less gas.
What would have an effect is the price of the bandwidth and the gasoline. The price is not a direct result of the distribution management style either. Sounds like they are twisting the story to make it look like it is not the price they want to change, just the management of it. If you take away the supply, the price will go up. That is the goal here although it is disguised.

only twice? (1)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812073)

Pshaw. That's easy. The major cost of bandwidth is running all the fiber. Doubling the bandwidth adds maybe 10%?

Re:only twice? (1)

JordanL (886154) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812303)

I believe they mean doubling *existing* bandwidth, in which case it would indeed cost a lot... that would mean doubling the entire infrastructure of our internet backbone.

But again, that doesn't necessarilly mean that its less cost-effective.

Re:only twice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19812589)

This keeps happening anyway, the infrastructure is getting upgraded all the time, more cables are laid etc etc. I think it's more the case that if the internet was tiered the traffic would drop a bit before carrying on with its typical inexorable rise... meaning they could lay off the upgrades for a few years - at the same time as raking in the cash by charging more! Doesn't seem like good value from my end.

Question (1)

BlueLightSpecial (898144) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812091)

Would there be any way to change our neutral internet to a tiered internet without loads of downtime? Or wouldn't it take many people down to do this switch?

Re:Question (1)

oyenstikker (536040) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812211)

If your ISP goes down to implement priority queuing, your ISP sucks. There should be no downtime. There probably won't be for major links. Residential customers of ISPs like Time Warner will probably see downtime, but how to tell that it is tiered changeover downtime and not the usual we-spent-all-our-money-on-yachts-instead-of-upgrad ing-our-aging-infrastructure downtime?

Show me the bandwidth (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19812095)

But we're already paying eight times the cost of neutral net bandwidth, so in what way is this study relevant to the consumer?

Re:Show me the bandwidth (5, Insightful)

enrevanche (953125) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813107)

It is relevant in that this study can be used by the congressman that have been paid for by AT&T to oppose net neutrality.

It is relevant because it will allow AT&T to make a system for which they can charge vastly more than they do now.

It is relevant because it will allow AT&T to reduce your choice more and more over time and to take bigger and bigger pieces of the internet pie.

It is relevant because it will allow AT&T to force more and more companies to deal directly with them for connectivity if their customers want any access to the AT&Ts customers (or shall we call them victims.)

Well one thing to consider (1)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812097)

Did they factor in the speed hit you get when you have to make the extra effort to throttle individual packets based on a priority table? What about latency- does a neutral net have lower latency than a tiered one?

Neutral Net is The Devil! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19812119)

AT&T estimates it might require as much as twice the bandwidth of a tiered internet.
AT&T also informed its customers that it would be unable to protect the children from evil monster internet pedophiles and that neutral net was found to be causing cancer in third world countries where protection against the silent killer is non-existent.

Between sobs, AT&T's CEO released a statement where he told everyone of a harrowing story where neutral net gained access to his home and forcibly raped him in front of his family.

Wait a second, doesn't AT&T make mad bank if net neutrality is abolished? Like, 'conflict of interest,' n' shit?

Re:Neutral Net is The Devil! (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812359)

AT&T also informed its customers that it would be unable to protect the children from evil monster internet pedophiles and that neutral net was found to be causing cancer in third world countries where protection against the silent killer is non-existent.


In related news, AT&T and Verizon have joined forces to form the Fight Neutral Net Coalition. Pwn Joornet, president of the Coalition said today that he feels this fight is important. "The Neutral Net causes AIDS, it causes global warming, it contributes to heart disease, and worst of all, it eats small children for breakfast. Will someone please think of the children?", said Joornet in a press conference earlier this week.

President George W. Bush, who was last seen laughing while holding up checks from AT&T and Verizon at the National Bank of Texas, was unable to be reached for comment.

government regulation vs free market (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812123)

I tend to support limiting government regulation. This is an issue that I find myself very conflicted on. I have seen studies that make a good case that insisting on net neutrality is the scenario that favors expanding bandwidth to the highest degree. The problem is that ISP's are generally government created semi-monopolies, so unless we force the government to change the rules eliminating this monopoly status, government regulation is necessary to maintain the public interest. On the other hand, I don't trust politicians to pass a "net neutrality" law that doesn't contain some additional onerous clauses. To sum up, I think net neutrality is in the best interest of everyone (even the ISP's in the long run), but I am afraid to support "net neutrality" laws because I suspect they will be something other than advertised.

Then look at ALL the regulation here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19812223)

So why get rid of "common carrier" and its' requirements when you still have the easements? The public donated infrastructure? The licensing monopoly? The legal protection of neutral network operator when you are no longer a neutral operator?

Are you torqued by government interference in a free market when it
protects artists (copyrights)
protects investors (patents)
protects corporations (trademarks and plc registration)
protects markets (corn/oil/wood subsidies)
removes external competitors (import tarrifs)

?

Re:Then look at ALL the regulation here (1)

sid0 (1062444) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812427)

Are you torqued by government interference in a free market when it protects artists (copyrights) protects investors (patents) protects corporations (trademarks and plc registration)

No, no, no. Government is to protect property, and without property there can be no free market. (I do recognise intellectual property as property, unlike some others: I just think the current system needs reform in prior art and such, and the time limits are stupid. I'm in favour of a copyright system in which automatic copyright is for, say, 30 years, and you have to register to extend it up to, say, 60 years. Patents should be valid for a lot less, of course.)

IP is a "government granted monopoly" in the same way as a piece of land you own is a "government granted monopoly". IP is NECESSARY in a free market.

protects markets (corn/oil/wood subsidies) removes external competitors (import tarrifs)

Yes and yes. I'm not a fan of subsidies and protectionism, especially in the developed world. I dislike lobbying as well -- it is clearly misuse of government power. Protectionism and lobbying are not legitimate parts of a free market.

Re:Then look at ALL the regulation here (1)

zotz (3951) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812555)

"I'm in favour of a copyright system in which automatic copyright is for, say, 30 years, and you have to register to extend it up to, say, 60 years. Patents should be valid for a lot less, of course."

"IP is a "government granted monopoly" in the same way as a piece of land you own is a "government granted monopoly". IP is NECESSARY in a free market."

I seriously don't understand your thinking here. Should your rights to your real property also expire after 30 years?

all the best,

drew

Re:Then look at ALL the regulation here (1)

sid0 (1062444) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813077)

Ah, I didn't mean that. I should rephrase my statement somewhat: I do recognise intellectual property to be like property. I didn't mean both were identical.

The "government granted monopoly" thinking is something that I'm just peeved at. Real, tangible property is as much a "government granted monopoly" as IP is -- which is to say, not at all. Just to clarify, A implying X and B implying X does not mean that A and B are the same.

The problem with free market and the internet. (3, Interesting)

Repossessed (1117929) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813253)

AT&T is the primary company pushing to be allowed to do this. I am a Comcast subscriber. This is my traceroute to google.com.

3 ge-5-4-ur01.saltlakecity.ut.utah.comcast.net (68.87.170.161) 9.116 ms 9.247 ms *
4 te-9-4-ar01.saltlakecity.ut.utah.comcast.net (68.87.170.9) 9.021 ms * 9.210 ms
5 12.116.47.117 (12.116.47.117) 19.295 ms 20.255 ms 19.232 ms
6 tbr1.dvmco.ip.att.net (12.122.86.250) 46.279 ms 46.672 ms 45.820 ms
7 tbr2.sffca.ip.att.net (12.122.12.133) 45.180 ms 45.821 ms 45.441 ms
8 ggr3.sffca.ip.att.net (12.122.82.149) 47.504 ms 47.508 ms 47.932 ms
9 att-gw.sanfran.level3.net (192.205.33.82) 167.304 ms 48.359 ms 45.286 ms
10 vlan69.csw1.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.68.18.62) 57.119 ms 49.613 ms 52.738 ms
I also point out that we already have a tiered network. so many MB/s costs so many dollars. Both for the provider *and* the consumer. AT&T is trying to make companies pay *again*. This shouldn't need more laws. This should be classified as extortion.

That said, I'm wary of net neutrality laws, Because from my understanding, the network is already managed. One of the local ISPs CEO did an interview in Wired, where he talked about how his company was already giving priority, based on what customers demanded and what needed the priority most. (VOIP service for example, gets high priority because disruption there matters more than elsewhere.)

This doesn't mean we shouldn't have net neutrality laws, Just that we need to be very careful about writing them, so that legitimate (non extortion) methods can still be used.*

*Though while we're at it, I wouldn't mind seeing it made illegal for college campuses to restrict how dorm students use their internet. There's really no excuse for cutting off somebodies access to communication (IRC is usually the first thing to get hit with idiotic security policies). And from my experience, dorms not only qualify as a monopoly ISP, but typically a mandatory monopoly as well. (I've even seen colleges, public ones, that require freshman to live in the dorms.)

What AT&T actually means to say is.... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19812195)

..."We really want to double the price of what you're paying us for bandwidth".

Re:What AT&T actually means to say is.... (1)

Inglix the Mad (576601) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813223)

No kidding.

"Corporate sponsorship of research doesn't automatically invalidate that research..."

No, but when it's AT&T you look 3 times because this is the same company that lied about the impact Net users had on the phone circuit system so they could try and get per minute charges levied. For those not in the know:

In the 90's the now AT&T phone company claimed that Internet users whom stayed online were a danger to the system as they took up so many resources. In Wisconsin they tried to get per minute charges levied against people whom used the net. Why? Well you have to travel back in time a bit and realize the Bell business model was "by the call" for local calls. If you made 5 calls a month instead of 50, you were costing them money. Fortunately some college kids, UC Berkeley I believe, bought some used phone company hardware and showed that creating the dial-tone was the drain on the system, thus net users whom stayed connect for long periods of time actually used less resources than your typical phone caller. Why? Net users might make 3 or 4 calls a day (Internet had started going unlimited) while the typical home user might make twice that (unless they had teenagers, then all bets were off).

I actually trust the cable company more than a phone company, and I don't trust the cable company much.

Stop the presses! (1)

Orange Crush (934731) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812207)

They mean to say that a network with arbitrary caps and rate limiting consumes less bandwidth than an unrestricted one? Say it ain't so!

Next up: Conserve water by tying a knot in your garden hose.

Re:Stop the presses! (2, Insightful)

dw (5168) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812511)

>They mean to say that a network with arbitrary caps and rate limiting consumes less bandwidth than an unrestricted one? Say it ain't so!

To look at it another way. A provider desiring to guarantee QOS... latency, jitter and minimum bandwidth for services such as VoIP, without having the benifit of having control over that bandwidth, would need to have a lot more bandwidth to meet those expectations.

This is just restating the idea that QOS enforcement becomes irrelevant with enough bandwidth.

Wait a second... (5, Insightful)

vigmeister (1112659) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812217)

When I am looking at leasing an internet connection at home, I equate bandwidth with speed and this is a reasonably rational assumption (today).

Analyzing the situation and pluggin in numbers,
Assume that the bandwidth available is fixed. What they're essentially saying is that either all of us can get 50BjBps (Bajillion Bps) regardless of the importance of our packets, or using a pareto distribution, 20% of us will get 80BjBps and 80% will get 20BjBps effectively?

I know these are rough numbers, But damn if I know which one I'd prefer... I think at the end of the day, a clearly defined set of standards for prioritization needs to first be developed by an independent body (ICANN/ISO/IEEE?). Once that is done, we can debate net neutrality. Right now, none of us actually know what is going to be prioritized. If streaming video for doctors performing live surgery is prioritized, I'm OK with that. If companies can buy priority for commercial, then I am kind of opposed to it unless I am guaranteed that these priority purchases will subsidize my connection.

Maybe they can have two levels of internet access: Neutral internet access (~$50 p.m) and Tiered access (~$10 p.m). Then let these levels fight it out. Of course, the implementation is unclear to me as I am not network engineer. To think about it, isn't this tiered in itself?

Cheers!

Re:Wait a second... (1)

Xeth (614132) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812639)

If what you want is a reduction in latency, how about just making that one more thing that you purchase when you're buying a connection? If I want my doctors to transmit videos, well then I'll buy the 10 mbit/100msec package. If I'm just messing around with email, then I'll buy a consumer package. By simply making latency another part of the purchasing decision, the market will (in this case) work. Why bother with nasty things like tiers and payola?


Yes, I realize that a single ISP doesn't control all the wires my packets run over, but they can make the appropriate purchases. Why should we treat latency as any different from bandwidth? Both are determined by all the intervening lines. We just need to sell on both.

... And so what? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19812243)

A toll road needs fewer lanes than a main highway. Heck, if you make the toll high enough, you won't need any lanes at all. So? The ISP's interest doesn't align with net users: ISPs want to maximize profits, which will require restricting traffic. Their view of the Internet is a toll road, not a superhighway.

The new way to spin "net neutrality is bad" (5, Insightful)

grev (974855) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812251)

Majority of people don't know what net neutrality is, they don't care, and they never will. Now, whenever the issue is brought up in the mainstream news or whatever, big business can talk about how it's half as efficient, in addition to being communist and un-American. I can only imagine how this will turn out.

Re:The new way to spin "net neutrality is bad" (1)

Magada (741361) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812393)

OH NOES! Twice the bandwidth needed! ZOMG! WTFBBQ! Pwnt!
The argument is easily defused, imho, by the simple observation that building and manning the infrastructure needed will actually create jobs, as well as provide new growth opportunity for all sorts of businesses - the new, neutral, high-bandwidth Internet could even become something like the highway and hydro projects undertaken as part of the New Deal - a way to energize the whole of the economy by targeted investments in infrastructure.

KISS (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812255)

Your existing newtorks are built upon relatively simple, freely available protocols.
Any hypothetical or actual throughput you think you'll gain from sexing up the infrastructure will come at the cost of lots of pain. Buggy code, code with bugs inserted for nefarious purposes...
I hope that there will always be "plain old networks" available. If a company wants to come up with some slick product and sell it to the sheep, fine. That's capitalism. I just wont have much compassion during the winter, when the sheep are asking WTF their wool went.

Re:KISS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19813071)

I think the key dimension on this is time.

At an instant, the 'optimal' solution is managed. But this changes. And a managed network will require network wide upgrades to 'correctly' support new 'services'. This will introduce huge costs and essentially prevent service introduction - killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

Interesting AT&T (etc) have lots of experience with this. IN (Intelligent Networks) failed for exactly this reason.

Net Neutrality (3, Insightful)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812269)

Is not about a dumb internet. It is about an internet that does not discriminate based on entry or exit points and/or the protocol being used except where such discrimination will benefit the overall network performance.

Net Neutrality Positive
VOIP Packets receiving priority (because lag and bandwidth throttling reduce performance of VOIP technologies)
Prioritizing Gaming traffic of popular/well used games (IE. MMOs, FPS over internet, etc...)

Net Neutrality Negative
Throttling Bandwidth on P2P applications (This is the big concern on most ISPs, they admittedly do suck up a lot of bandwidth)
Extorting Money from websites who have not paid large sums of money for faster service (YouTube-wannabes)
Delaying or Denying packets coming from X-Network (because they didn't pay extortion money)

Ways to fix things... Run more Fiber. It should not be as hard as it was before since many of the tunnels and such have been made already.

Re:Net Neutrality (1)

daskro (973768) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812749)

How does Net Neut prioritize VOIP and gaming traffic? If anything it does the opposite since it treats all the traffic the same.

Re:Net Neutrality (1)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813027)

No I was just saying that if it improves the performance of the network functions it is justified.

VOIP is a very time sensitive protocol. If your ping times become laggy and/or your bandwidth fails to meet the required 64kbps that a DS0 channel requires then the audio becomes choppy and/or delayed and laggy. This is perfectly acceptable in video communications but audio with lagging response is to say the least an annoyance (Notice on News reporters on the scene (or astronauts) they ask a question and sometimes theres a delay of up to 2+ seconds before they respond? Thats the sorta thing we're talking about here. Cant do much about the astronaut scenario since thats a limitation on the laws of physics). FPS games fall under similar things since delays getting too long renders a game unplayable.

So yes if you want voice communications over the internet then you want them to prioritize that traffic. What you DONT want them doing is intentionally throttling and/or delaying packets (IE. Torrents) that have no particular performance reason for being delayed other than they've not bothered to lay enough fiber for the bandwidth to their customers.

So in short yes you want protocols and programs which require more 'real-time' response to be prioritized over torrents but they should not be throttling connections and/or engaging in active filtering (Censorship) of websites because they refuse to pay for their bandwidth twice (once to get it out, once to get it to customers in a quick and expedient manner).

Re:Net Neutrality (2, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812787)

Ways to fix things... Run more Fiber. It should not be as hard as it was before since many of the tunnels and such have been made already.
That is not the answer.
There is already plenty of fiber is lying around.

The real issue is hardware to light up the fiber and then to switch the packets.
That is where the ISPs are trying to cheap out.

Bandwidth (5, Interesting)

Renraku (518261) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812325)

Bandwidth is a funny resource.

Imagine if you had a tree that bore fruit once or twice a day. But if you did not eat the fruit within an hour, it spoiled. There's no point in trying to conserve the fruit unless your demand is higher than the output of the tree.

Its always good to have say, 10% free. Out of ten fruit, leave one so that any surprise visitors might have a quick snack as well.

Of course, the other reason you might try to conserve it is to create artificial demand. Now, half of your crop goes to waste. You sell the other half for very high prices saying that your supply just can't keep up with demand and that you must sell them at a higher price due to the whole free market thing.

Point is, every fruit you don't sell will be useless in an hour. But its better to let a fruit rot than to sell it for a decent price, after all.

This looks like double-speak to me (4, Insightful)

Fross (83754) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812331)

couldn't this be re-interpreted as saying that if they were to run a tiered network, they would have no problem throttling its bandwidth to 50%, in order to ensure the content *they* prioritise gets through unhindered?

fud fud fud fud fud fud fud .... (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812365)

fud fud fud ...

When in doubt, spread fud. Just like the myth of "the evils of socialized medicine." Tell the same lie enough and people start spouting it themselves. Now, for example, you have uneducated ignorant folk yelling as loud as can be that "commie-loving socialized medicine is no good," despite the fact that in many countries it works sufficient enough to increase the average lifespan of their citizens. [and for the record, I think Michael Moore is full of shit, so don't lump me in with that sensationalizing lying sack of shit].

Same thing here. The telcos will tell us over and over that "this it the way things must be in a god fearing red blooded free america" and people will eat it up. In 10 years you'll hear the same ignorant uneducated folk spouting on about the evils of a "neutral network" as being commie and evil.

People really need to learn to research context. Then they'll see through the BS of modern lobbyists/advertisers and be straight.

Tom

Re:fud fud fud fud fud fud fud .... (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812463)

Wait -- for all your complaining about health-related fud, aren't you the one who thinks a valid way to calculate fraction of health care costs due to the legal system, would be to divide visible awards (or visible awards + lawyer costs) by total health care expenditures? And then to say, "oops, that's .5%, guess it's not a big deal, even if doctors spend half their salaries on liability insurance" ?

Re:fud fud fud fud fud fud fud .... (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813095)

I think that health care should be universal. But you have to present both sides of the issue. Yes, you benefit with increased health coverage, less red tape [everything is covered, no hassling about which treatment is available], etc. But you DO pay more in taxes for it. It's not free, it's universal. And it works because most people don't need it on a regular basis but pay for it anyways. For example, for every 1 person in a hospital [or currently going through a treatment] there is probably a 100 who aren't, if not more. The problem is when you're only goal in life is to maximize profit. You just can't reason why a business should be non-profit (e.g. break even on the costs). Then those same people spread the fud about "evil socialized services."

Similarly, I think the net should be universal as well. I pay my ISP $X dollars/mo for my connection and I should be able to hit any other IP that is routable through the net. It just makes sense. People have to realize there is more to life than being richer than your neighbour [who ironically most people ignore anyways].

And that's as simple as it gets. Most people in France, the UK and Cuba [three spots that Asshat Moore went to] do with a lot less than their American counterparts. Despite what they showed in the film, not everyone in france lives in a 4 bedroom apartment with two cars, no debt, a plasma tv, etc... I know a bunch of peeps from the UK, Ireland, France, etc and while they're not bad off, they're not living the same type of life [e.g. material wise].

Middle class Americans for the most part couldn't fathom living in a semi-detached house, with no car, taking public transit, etc. That's what poor people do afterall!

The irony of course is the more they cling to the HMO bullying the less coverage they'll actually receive.

Tom

Twice the bandwidth (1)

vsavkin (136167) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812395)

Is this really a big deal?
In much cases, fast and dumb solution is cheaper than smart, but slow.
If you have not enough busses - just upgrade to faster transceivers as optical fiber can carry practically unlimited bandwidth.
And you can look at computers for another example - upgrade processor, busses is faster and cheaper then optimizing applications.

Re:Twice the bandwidth (1)

enrevanche (953125) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813341)

This is absolutely true in the abstract sense and if AT&T were charged with making an efficient system it is what they would be trying to do. What they are really try to is make a revenue maximization system. If this costs three times as much to the consumer (in infrastructure, bureaucracy and equipment) so that AT&T can double it's profits then the hell with the consumer.

From "bandwidth crisis" to deep profit inspection? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812399)

In Capitalist West at&t profits by you sending packets.
In Soviet Russia at&t profits by spy sending packets to you.

So, basically.... (1)

plazman30 (531348) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812405)

AT&T is saying that their existing customer base is getting crappy service because they don't have enough bandwidth to support their customer base. So, instead of, I don't know....dealing with the problem by making infrastructure changes they should have made 5-10 years ago, instead they want to charge content providers for access to their inadequate pipes.

With all the patching Automatic Update does, I'm surprised that Microsoft isn't all over a neutral net. They may have to pay a fortune to ISPs. Then again, they would just probably create a "Windows Update Pro" and charge users for "faster access" to updates.

Andy

Google Translate: (4, Funny)

fishthegeek (943099) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812457)

I ran the text through google translate and this is what happened:

Researchers at AT&T were very concerned that bandwidth would be further commoditized if the government does not act to prevent it. If At&t is required to treat everyone the same, then the consumer is free to choose the services that they want based on something called "quality of service" rather than a more practical method of choosing.... say... oh I don't know... uhm... a method of choosing based on how profitable it is for At&t. Having the consumer choose services based on what benefits At&t is a much more practical and convenient way for the consumer to purchase services over the Internet.

At&t is very concerned about the bewildering number of options that the American consumer has available, and with the best interest of our customers at heart, At&t should assist the consumer by limiting the number of choices immediately.

Spokesmen for At&t quickly said that "We do not want to the consumer to get the full unfettered benefit of the Internet because then we would have to actually add infrastructure to meet demand.

Re:Google Translate: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19812559)

Of course, you got this biased translation only because the money hoarders at Google have rigged their translator, Google being the ultimate freeloader on the hard work of the ISPs ;)

Re:Google Translate: (1)

badfish99 (826052) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813105)

Google being the ultimate freeloader on the hard work of the ISPs
Wow: Google get to use the network for free!!?? I never knew that </sarcasm>

Re:Google Translate: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19813451)

so AT&T wants to F****n kill google now? Watch the chairs fly!

In other words... (2, Insightful)

Em Ellel (523581) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812491)

Allowing traffic through requires more bandwidth than blocking traffic.

Whomever got paid to "research" this - I admire your ability to get paid for stating the obvious.

-Em

Re:In other words... (4, Insightful)

bhmit1 (2270) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812753)

Allowing traffic through requires more bandwidth than blocking traffic.
More importantly, they basically said that when they are allowed to have a tiered internet, they intend on blocking half of the traffic. If you're a generator of traffic to an isp, and you're not paying the tariff/extortion, guess what half you're in?

The tiered aspect should be on the client side (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812531)

One would think it would be about economies of scale, stupid AT&T, et al. Seriously, if you offer a base broadband package for $10/month with 2GB of download bandwidth included, and $0.25/GB after that, I bet that would reliably generate a lot more revenue, in a more efficient way, than mucking around with websites, contracts, etc. Anyone remember the telecoms trying to make companies like Google out to be robber barons, foisting all of the costs onto the public [codemonkeyramblings.com]? That's how ridiculous it's gotten. Unlimited bandwidth may be sensible someday, but not right now. The rest of the network just isn't up to handling many users maxing out their pipe every month. Metered bandwidth would solve that in a market-friendly way.

Re:The tiered aspect should be on the client side (1)

enrevanche (953125) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813491)

NO, no no no. This will provide the most efficient and cost effective system for the consumer. Not only would the system be easy to maintain, it would allow audits to determine whether a provider is reasonably charging for the semi-monopolized service.

But

By building a huge regulated infrastructure, the comprehension of the system is too difficult. Plus, AT&T knows that consumer will become more and more dependent on the internet. They know that they can get consumers to eventually pay substantially more to get the services they need. The consumer will never know what hit him and he will be "thankful" that AT&T has sorted it all out for him.

Strawman to Confuse and Distract from the Issue (1)

ClarkEvans (102211) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812543)

Having a Neutral Network doesn't mean that it can't have different levels of service. The U.S. Postal system is neutral, it doesn't [1] favor big companies over small ones, or some content over others. It has *classes* of mail, and charges by class. A tiered network can work the same way, packets do have a place to mark their priority. There is no reason why we can't develop ways to change content priority. Real-time stuff can mark their packets higher, and bulk-mail can mark the packets for overnight delivery ;)

What they mean to do, however, is different. It is to charge differently based on who you are, who your communicating to, and what sort of content your sending. This is nothing more than corporate censorship. It is wrong.

[1] Well, it just now there are proposals to start pricing USPS mail based on the amount of mail you send. This is clearly wrong since it favors larger corporations over smaller ones, and hence serves to limit competition.

Re:Strawman to Confuse and Distract from the Issue (1)

sid0 (1062444) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813239)

Why? Think of it as a bulk order. Bulk orders are great business. Does anyone complain when a large corporation gets software for less per piece than a smaller corporation, or an individual, would?

Twice as useful (1)

Experiment 626 (698257) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812545)

The purpose of a network is to transmit data. It receives usage when a customer sends packets over it. By AT&T's own admission, a neutral network is twice as useful to customers as a tiered one, but they want the tiered one anyway since it increases profit margins and allows them to blackmail Web sites.

AT&T estimates!!! PLEASE (1)

enrevanche (953125) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812691)

This is just another industry sponsored "proof" for use by lobbyists.

Corporate sponsorship of research doesn't automatically invalidate that research Right, I'm sure Phillip Morris would agree. Industry doesn't sponsor research that it doesn't already know what the conclusion will be.

Why? (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812701)

I read the Ars article, and tried to get through the AT&T study (going to try again after more coffee). As I read this research: If companies are allowed to drop "unimportant" packets to the sidelines, while only guaranteeing 1/3 of the packets as fast delivery as otherwise necessary, they only need 50% of the bandwidth.

Assuming that my analysis is correct:

  1. No shit. Airlines recently announced that if customers are willing to extend travel times by flying around the world on empty seats to get where they are going, they can cut the number of planes in the sky by XX%.
  2. Who cares. Over the backbone of the internet, there should be enough bandwidth.
  3. The want to fuck me. Who cares if someone else's packets get dropped. My packets are obviously higher priority to me. If John Doe down the street really needs tons of packets, let him pay more. I don't think anyone opposes tiering on the consumer side.

Re:Why? (1)

Chirs (87576) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813333)

"I don't think anyone opposes tiering on the consumer side."

Um...yah. I do. Your example is not tiering, but rather simply paying for bandwidth.

Tiering would allow your ISP to define their traffic shaping, so that maybe Vonage VoIP packets get dropped while AT&T's VoIP packets get through because AT&T owns the network. Or they decide that newsgroups are unimportant and so now they take forever to access. Or maybe your neighbor fires up his TV-over-IP and all the sudden your dropped packet rate spikes because he's taking up all the bandwidth.

Article title misleading (1)

ao_coder (898070) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812739)

Neutral net COULD need AS MUCH AS twice the bandwidth. Let's not spread worst-case scenario memes just because it looks good as a headline.

are they not selling bandwidth? (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812745)

I do not know if they are saying that the need for bandwidth is a good or bad thing. What I do know is that most people who sell stuff are not looking to sell less of it. They may package it so they sell less at a higher profit each time, but they are trying to sell more. For instance ATT is now trying to sell integrated packages to pay for all the cable they are laying out. These packages coincidentally are in some cases asking you to pay for stuff that you can get free on the internet. Additionally bandwidth is not so limited as to need be rationed during peak time, such as, for instance, is energy.

If ATT considers bandwidth to be a problem, here might be why. The baby bells as the 90's were ending felt the need to halt the progress that was being made on opening up the bandwidth market. They slashed prices on DSL and created real impediments to competitors. For instance, it is not always possible to have multiple third party services on one line. In the process they created a situation in which bandwidth was very cheap, and service was very bad. If the study is correct, I think we will find taht ATT is undersupplying the market in bandwidth, assuming that everyone will buy their new services. IN fact I would say it is, after only 7 years, nearly impossible to find a DSL plan that actually provide the level of service we were used to in the late 90's.

So ? as long as i PAY for that bandwidth, (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812841)

who are they to tell me how to use it for god's sakes. i bought it, i use it, and you cant tell me anything about it. dont sell it if you dont want to.

title should be (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19812851)

neutral net provides twice the bandwidth for the same cost

Dark Fiber (1)

Ranger (1783) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812869)

So what happened to all that optical fiber that was laid but unused during the dot com era? Did it finally get used? Every company wants to emulate DeBeers and create artificial scarcity, so they can jack up the price. If spam were ever gotten under control I would imagine that there would be no need to increase bandwidth.

Smells like FUD to me.

Re:Dark Fiber (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813013)

There is a lot of dark fiber in the ground along major backbones, but that doesn't mean the switching and last mile distribution to use it is in place. And a lot of that fiber is not up to specs needed for 100Gbps DWDM.

Bill Microsoft for malware traffic then (2, Interesting)

gig (78408) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812877)

For years a significant portion of Internet bandwidth is faulty Windows computers distributing malware to each other because Microsoft deviated from standard industry practice with regards to network security.

If you're going to start being stingy about bandwidth I suggest network providers bill Microsoft until their tire fires are put out.

Our neutral internet? (1)

DCheesi (150068) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813005)

As you might imagine, our neutral internet is far more bandwidth-intensive;

"Our neutral internet"? Obviously the OP doesn't realize that ISPs are already managing network flow, and have been since such management technologies first became available to them. Colleges and other ISPs already try to identify and downgrade bandwidth-intensive torrents and such (if not block them outright), and cable ISPs already give special priority to their own network services (cable-co. VoIP plans, etc.).

This then brings up another point: There are two different issues being lumped together under the "net neutrality" name. The first is simply traffic-shaping and bandwidth management in general; the second is allowing ISPs to charge individual content providers for higher priority within their networks. One is already in place, and is often (but not always) a very good thing. The other is objectionable on several fronts.

I think most people who advocate "net neutrality" are objecting to the second issue, whereas most pro-telco arguments (including this AT&T study) are focused on the first issue.

What Happened to All the Overcapacity? (5, Insightful)

rbegga (662104) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813145)

To the Bandwidth Providers:

We keep hearing these arguments from the Telco's and Cable COs about how much more difficult it will be to build and maintain an open Internet because of the bandwidth requirements that imposes. Enlighten us as to why this is now a problem considering the major Telecom bust that occurred a few years back was due to the overcapacity you had built into your networks? Google is going around buying up dark fiber from you guys while you're complaining about lack of infrastructure? Nonsense. I don't believe you guys can't figure out a model to make this work for you and us without getting the government involved.

Duh (2, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813247)

It should be obvious that if you don't prioritize traffic based on QoS requirements that you will need more bandwidth. This has been a basic given for many years now. The question is what will it cost to prioritize the traffic to meet a given QoS level vs. just adding bandwidth.

There are a lot lot of people who think the various prioritization schemes that have been proposed just won't work because they are not scalable - while a fast dumb core is.

To me the problem with prioritization is that it is just harder to implement, and once it is in place it makes management harder. Also it tends to place limits as to what you can do on the IP network. Fast-dumb doesn't have these problems.

Multicast (4, Interesting)

Kludge (13653) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813273)

Speaking of reducing necessary bandwidth, when are these ISPs all going to push multicast for media delivery? Isn't this a no brainer for reducing bandwidth?

Give us what we PAID before for now, then talk (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813277)

You are not even providing the bandwidth you were supposed to provide with your advertisement and rates and all the public funding you got. First, give us the promised bandwidth, then talk about other stuff. You were selling products that you were not able to deliver - this passes as fraud in any country, court in the world.

Let's try it again. (1)

seebs (15766) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813301)

Okay, who wants to try to come up with words which provide network neutrality, without preventing me from blocking spammers. :) (Note: I would, of course, be willing to let someone who wants to put up some money to back his claim that his mail is legitimate send me mail. After all, the problem with spam is that, since it's free, it grows without bounds. If it costs money, he's not going to send tons of crap.)

Re:Let's try it again. (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813507)

Okay, who wants to try to come up with words which provide network neutrality, without preventing me from blocking spammers.
You're welcome to block all the spam you want. Blocking email based on whether or not the sender shelled out cash *cough*goodmail*cough* isn't "blocking spam", just like blocking Youtube based on whether or not they shelled out cash for the bandwidth your customer was already paying for isn't a "tiered internet".

Around here, the words we use for "network neutrality" that don't prevent you from blocking spammers are "status" and "quo". We're not the ones trying to change the way the internet is run.

It's not about efficiency, stupid! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19813369)

It's also not efficient to have thousands of newspapers and radio shows. It would be much more efficient to have only one newspaper, one radio network, one television network, one computer company, one research and development group, one scientific union, one answer to the question about life the universe and everything, one set of rules, one bureaucracy, one queen. Elvira, where are you when we need you?

Twice what? (2, Informative)

AnyThingButWindows (939158) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813493)

George Orwell warned everyone about doublespeak. Net Neutrality is the internet as it is NOW. Unregulated, untouched, and un-fucked with by the Bells.

So the headline states that we need to double the bandwidth we have now, in order for what we have now to work?
That makes no sense what-so-ever.

There's a _very_ simple answer (1)

samael (12612) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813527)

Charge people for the bandwidth they use.

If ISPs weren't wedded to unlimited plans for their customers then they could charge people for what they actually use and not have to worry about charging at both ends.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...