Neutral Net Needs Twice the Bandwidth of Tiered 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."
And (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
AT&T sees it as a way to increase their profits, In other words, unless we boycott them, we sponsor their waste of money...
Perhaps now, any see why we could do better as an "Internet" without the largest players, at least until they're properly leashed?
Re:And (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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!"
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There, fixed it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What I don't get is, from what I understand, a tiered internet is only screwing America. AT&T can charge all they want for the last mile, but with more and more of the Internet being installed elsewhere (and I bet more will come if it gets tiered in America), and more and more users not in America, Europeans, Asians and Australians will get excellent connections to servers in Europe, Asia and Australia, while
Re: (Score:2)
NNs (Score:2)
TFA (Score:2, Funny)
Re:And (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
And what I think you're missing is that the low-density areas have essentially been created by
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Just Because (Score:2)
Not to mention (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like saying a tractor-trailer requires an engine with 20x the torque of a family sedan. Well, yeah, because they do different things.
A net neutral network provides a level playing field on which content providers can enter without barriers and compete against anybody.
A non-neutral net does not provide the ability of content vendors to enter the market on an equal basis without setting up a special deal with a network bandwidth provider. In practice, this m
only twice? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But again, that doesn't necessarilly mean that its less cost-effective.
Show me the bandwidth (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Show me the bandwidth (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
It isn't. (Score:4, Insightful)
The above remedies would give all of the smoothing at peak times on heavily loaded routers, but in a manner that is entirely equitable and - get this - doesn't actually reduce the service provided to anyone. The peaks that kill the backbones are not particularly long-lived and contain a vast number of unnecessary retransmits, inflating the traffic levels. Schemes already exist that can potentially halve the retransmits and diffuse the load over just enough time that it can be handled. Other schemes already exist that can eliminate unnecessary repeat transmissions from source, massively reducing the load on the most burdened segments.
None of these require that any user be given priority or special privileges. None of these require that neutrality be compromised. Yet none of these require that either services or end-users experience any detectable delays (at worst) - and most of the time, both services and end-users will experience a much faster, smoother Internet.
Of course, you'll never get AT&T to admit that the reason they can't do any better is that they're not only greedy but also technologically incompetent. Nonetheless, that is the reality of the situation. It is also something missing from said "study".
government regulation vs free market (Score:2)
The problem with free market and the internet. (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
Here's the difference (Score:2)
The difference with IP as property is that, within the bounds of patent law, no one can even have property "like" it. If you have own a car, I'm free to buy a car just like it. If there were no patents on it, then I could build my own car just like it. (Maybe I could anyway, IANAL.) The analogy to it being a monopoly is not a bad analogy.
That said, I'm not against IP in theory, although I think your 30/60 numbers are a bit extreme. Unfortunately, the numbers that make sense depend on the field. In CS, 1 y
Re: (Score:2)
But copyrights and patents are government granted monopolies.
You can protect your stuff yourself without the government, just keep all your ideas secret. Now sure, the government should protect your person so that someone does not torture you into giving up your secrets to them...
all the best,
drew
Re: (Score:2)
What AT&T actually means to say is.... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I actually trust the cable company more than a phone company
And I trust my Ouija board's lotto picks over my fortune cookie's
Stop the presses! (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a second... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 wi
Re:Wait a second...How About...? (Score:2)
How about the EFF?
The new way to spin "net neutrality is bad" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Net Neutrality (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Net Neutrality-Except it Isn't!!! (Score:2)
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...)
Except that the only VoIP that your giant ISP will prioritize will be their own, overpriced version. It will be used to kill off all other VoIP competition.
As for the gaming, expect to pay a monthly surcharge, which might be hidden in the monthly game charges if they collect it f
Re: (Score:2)
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 somet
Bandwidth (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This looks like double-speak to me (Score:5, Insightful)
fud fud fud fud fud fud fud .... (Score:2)
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 se
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, basically.... (Score:2)
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. Th
Re:So, basically.... (Score:5, Insightful)
They can afford to pay a fortune to ISPs, especially if it means competitors (like every Linux distro that is gratis as well as libre) that can't instantly suffers a major disadvantage in pushing updates.
Google Translate: (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
And now you know why Google will be the first Internet service relegated to the slowest service possible. Can't have this getting out to everyone. Heck, they might even put it on their main page -- something to fill up all that unused white space.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow: Google get to use the network for free!!?? I never knew that </sarcasm>
In other words... (Score:3, Insightful)
Whomever got paid to "research" this - I admire your ability to get paid for stating the obvious.
-Em
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Now, your broadband provider pays the same cost to transfer 1 kb whether you're downloading a web page or a movie - you just get a lot more bits with a movie. It's never made since to me that someone who
Re:The tiered aspect should be on the client BUT (Score:2)
Excuse me BUT, AT&T already has to offer a basic DSL connection for $10/mo with no cap. This is part of what they agreed to in order to be allowed to merge with another provider. While they hide this fact as best they can (don't believe me, go try to find it on their pages), it's already there. I'd get it for my mother, if it was just available in her area because it's all
Twice as useful (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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:
Re: (Score:2)
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 s
Re: (Score:2)
No, what you are describing is content based tiering (which is evil). I meant tiering, just on the consumer side. For instance, I would love to have a guaranteed connection of X, with an up to Y ( Y > X ) connection speed when bandwidth was available, assuming it was cheaper than just Y bandwidth. That is, have a tier 1 connection of X, and a tier 2 connection of Y-X. As long I can use my VOIP and some small webbrowsing on the side.
are they not selling bandwidth? (Score:2)
So ? as long as i PAY for that bandwidth, (Score:2)
Dark Fiber (Score:2)
Smells like FUD to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Microsoft for malware traffic then (Score:3, Interesting)
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? (Score:2)
"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
What Happened to All the Overcapacity? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Give us what we PAID before for now, then talk (Score:2)
Let's try it again. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Twice what? (Score:2, Informative)
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 (Score:2)
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.
no sh*t sherlock (Score:2)
Ripoff Talk (Score:3, Insightful)
These Net Doublecharge crooks will say anything to get their extortion money. I expect they will, because they don't care about us, just their money and political power. But why does Slashdot have to publish it? Slashdot, a big website, is a target for Net Doublecharge, which will blackmail Slashdot's servers to carry its traffic to nerd consumers.
Let's not only pay them to give us the Internet that we built for them with our taxes and scientists, and created demand for with our content and services, and also peddle their lies that are stealing the whole thing from us.
The Tiered Network I Want (Score:2)
I want different levels of service for different services.
And I want to be the one who sets those levels. After all, it's MY bandwidth. I'M the one paying for it!
Let me be the one to decide to put my preferred VoIP provider at the top. It doesn't use that much bandwidth overall, but response is important. My Bittorret goes at the bottom. Web browsing in the middle, and on-line gaming above that. You can guess where YouTube fits in.
I, for one, believe that if the ability
Bandwidth is cheap. Marketing is expensive (Score:2)
Bandwidth isn't where the cost goes. The biggest costs for an ISP are in in marketing and customer support, not bandwidth. If you look at wholesale ISP rates, what an reseller pays per customer for the raw service, they're less than half the retail rates.
The key to cost control is keeping down the number of people involved. Fibre is cheap.
An amazingly small multiplier! (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems to me what they are thinking is that all the managed stuff will fit within existing capacity and then the unmanaged stuff requires new capacity. Or, to put it another way, all the available capacity needs to be managed.
So the real statement here is "we need to close down the internet as it exists today so we can repurpose the network in order to generate greater revenues".
Two teirs = two separate pipes (Score:4, Interesting)
If you want a practical example of precisely how they they plan to violate network neutrality look at the DOCSIS 3.0 spec. It reserves about 80% of the bandwidth on the coaxial cable for video and telephone services that are exclusively provided by the cable company (i.e. no one else is allowed on). The other 20% of the bandwidth is provided as general Internet access (with the usual limited upload speed). This way they can be the gatekeeper for high-bandwidth content (i.e. video) and low-latency applications (i.e. VoIP) while every other business that wants access to their customers has to either pay to get on their high-speed channels or get stuck with the slow lane.
The telephone companies are already rolling out technologies that divide up fiber connections in a similar fashion. The "big plan" is to get paid extra for that exclusive, high-speed and low-latency channel into people's homes. It is a hugely anti-competitive situation.
If you provide streaming video to anyone on the Internet you will not be able to compete with the speed and quality of the video coming over Comcast's, AT&T's, and Verizon's dedicated pipes. If you're a VoIP provider that provides telephone service to anyone on the Internet you will not be able to compete with the low-latency and high quality of the big ISP's dedicated pipes. If you provide *any* service over the Internet all it will take for you to be crushed out of existence is for the big ISPs to start offering the same service on their dedicated, exclusive channels.
It isn't about prioritizing traffic. It is about dividing it up and destroying the free market that is Internet access in people's homes. It is literally "divide and conquer".
Re: (Score:2)
{
delete(pPacket);
}
Where can I get my check?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)