A Broadband and ADSL forum. BroadbanterBanter

Welcome to BroadbanterBanter.

You are currently viewing as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today.

Go Back   Home » BroadbanterBanter forum » Newsgroup Discussions » uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) (uk.telecom.broadband) Discussion of broadband services, technology and equipment as provided in the UK. Discussions of specific services based on ADSL, cable modems or other broadband technology are also on-topic. Advertising is not allowed.

Net neutrality



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 10th 14, 07:46 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Mike Tomlinson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 285
Default Net neutrality


A good write up on the current net neutrality row in the US. Worth a
read because it's likely the same thing will happen here sooner or
later.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05...lained_and_how
_to_get_a_better_internet/

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
  #2  
Old May 10th 14, 10:46 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
George Weston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 467
Default Net neutrality

On 10/05/2014 19:46, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

A good write up on the current net neutrality row in the US. Worth a
read because it's likely the same thing will happen here sooner or
later.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05...lained_and_how
_to_get_a_better_internet/

Very thought-provoking. Thanks for that.
  #3  
Old May 11th 14, 07:26 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
The Natural Philosopher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,728
Default Net neutrality

On 10/05/14 22:46, George Weston wrote:
On 10/05/2014 19:46, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

A good write up on the current net neutrality row in the US. Worth a
read because it's likely the same thing will happen here sooner or
later.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05...lained_and_how
_to_get_a_better_internet/

Very thought-provoking. Thanks for that.


Ah. a penny has just dropped. many thanks for that link - I would have
read it anyway but not for another hour...hadn't got down to el reg
yet..I always seem to start with mail, then usenet..


ISP peering was always shrouded in 'its not quite worth our while to
charge you' ness. And a lot of "well lets get rid or this packet EARLY
onto YOUR network, since its YOUR customer.."

However it sorta reminds me of when the web first came along. Up to that
point most traffic was email, and usenet with a bit of file transfer.

Usenet was the biggest traffic. no one wanted it because it was a
service used by few and paid for by everybody. It could full a 2Mbps
pile just keeping up with it.

Then the web took over and pushing all those sexy images totally
dominated the net for a while.

Today its pushing videos.

In all cases what solved the problem was more bandwidth. And/or caching.

And then server location.

And that's where it starts to get interesting.

I am a big content delivery company. I can build a private network and
peer (or buy bandwidth) with the internet in the USA, in the UK and in
many other places. Its up to me what I do, routing wise inside my cloud.

IN fact I can do the equivalent of NAT. So that a request for a given
machine can connect any one of 50 or 100 machines as decided by which
one is 'closest' to the point the request enters my 'network'. If the
content doesn't change I only need to sync these say once a day to
ensure they all have cached copies. I don't even have to have private
links between these nodes. Since I don't advertise transit links. I can
synch them over the public internet.


The argument then comes as to whether I am going to pay the ISPS that I
peer with ....they get the benefit of their customers accessing me but
they have to pay to transmit my data to MY customers.

Whose customers are they?


And that is the resal battel.

Does a person on BT Internet paying 8 a month to BT and 8 a month to
netflix 'belong' to netflix or to BT?


Nothing moral in this at all.All about profit.









--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

  #4  
Old May 11th 14, 12:44 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
7
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Net neutrality

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 10/05/14 22:46, George Weston wrote:
On 10/05/2014 19:46, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

A good write up on the current net neutrality row in the US. Worth a
read because it's likely the same thing will happen here sooner or
later.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05...lained_and_how
_to_get_a_better_internet/

Very thought-provoking. Thanks for that.


Ah. a penny has just dropped. many thanks for that link - I would have
read it anyway but not for another hour...hadn't got down to el reg
yet..I always seem to start with mail, then usenet..


ISP peering was always shrouded in 'its not quite worth our while to
charge you' ness. And a lot of "well lets get rid or this packet EARLY
onto YOUR network, since its YOUR customer.."

However it sorta reminds me of when the web first came along. Up to that
point most traffic was email, and usenet with a bit of file transfer.

Usenet was the biggest traffic. no one wanted it because it was a
service used by few and paid for by everybody. It could full a 2Mbps
pile just keeping up with it.

Then the web took over and pushing all those sexy images totally
dominated the net for a while.

Today its pushing videos.

In all cases what solved the problem was more bandwidth. And/or caching.

And then server location.

And that's where it starts to get interesting.

I am a big content delivery company. I can build a private network and
peer (or buy bandwidth) with the internet in the USA, in the UK and in
many other places. Its up to me what I do, routing wise inside my cloud.

IN fact I can do the equivalent of NAT. So that a request for a given
machine can connect any one of 50 or 100 machines as decided by which
one is 'closest' to the point the request enters my 'network'. If the
content doesn't change I only need to sync these say once a day to
ensure they all have cached copies. I don't even have to have private
links between these nodes. Since I don't advertise transit links. I can
synch them over the public internet.


The argument then comes as to whether I am going to pay the ISPS that I
peer with ....they get the benefit of their customers accessing me but
they have to pay to transmit my data to MY customers.

Whose customers are they?


And that is the resal battel.

Does a person on BT Internet paying 8 a month to BT and 8 a month to
netflix 'belong' to netflix or to BT?


Nothing moral in this at all.All about profit.



You seem to have very little understanding of what an internet is.

The internet is not its content.

The internet is just a packet shuffling network.
The ISPs should only charge according to how many
packets its shuffling.

The ISP should never be allowed to open the
packets and inspect it to make judgement calls.

They should only be allowed to offer more packets and charge
accordingly.

There is nothing to discuss beyond that as the ISP
would never have any rights to open a packet.

If an ISP or back bone provider cannot provide
more packets at a cheaper price and continue
the trend of internet expansion,
they should be allowed to wither and perish
so that more capable companies with fewer
overheads can service the booming market.


  #5  
Old May 11th 14, 07:32 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
alexd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,765
Default Net neutrality

7 (for it is he) wrote:

The ISP should never be allowed to open the
packets and inspect it to make judgement calls.


Different routes may have different costs for an ISP.

--
http://ale.cx/ (AIM:troffasky) )
19:31:34 up 129 days, 21:10, 9 users, load average: 0.66, 0.54, 0.48
"If being trapped in a tropical swamp with Anthony Worral-Thompson and
Christine Hamilton is reality then I say, pass the mind-altering drugs"
-- Humphrey Lyttleton

  #6  
Old May 12th 14, 08:52 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
The Natural Philosopher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,728
Default Net neutrality

On 11/05/14 19:32, alexd wrote:
7 (for it is he) wrote:

The ISP should never be allowed to open the
packets and inspect it to make judgement calls.


Different routes may have different costs for an ISP.

indeed. without 'opening the packet' it cant do routing.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

  #7  
Old May 12th 14, 10:06 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 525
Default Net neutrality

On Mon, 12 May 2014 08:52:28 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/05/14 19:32, alexd wrote:
7 (for it is he) wrote:

The ISP should never be allowed to open the
packets and inspect it to make judgement calls.


Different routes may have different costs for an ISP.

indeed. without 'opening the packet' it cant do routing.


They don't need to look at the data though, just the header.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

  #8  
Old May 12th 14, 11:37 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
tim.....
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Net neutrality


"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 May 2014 08:52:28 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/05/14 19:32, alexd wrote:
7 (for it is he) wrote:

The ISP should never be allowed to open the
packets and inspect it to make judgement calls.

Different routes may have different costs for an ISP.

indeed. without 'opening the packet' it cant do routing.


They don't need to look at the data though, just the header.


But isn't the information required here in the header?

I don't know how the internet works, but when I used to work on sending
voice over private data networks there were different classes of data
packet.

Those which need to be delivered in the right order with the same delay
every time (AKA audio/video streaming) and those where you don't care (the
rest). You didn't need to read the data to find this out, the sender told
you as it was in his interests to do so

And if providing a network to satisfy the former costs more, it doesn't seem
unreasonable to ask the people who use it to pay that extra. Why should
those who don't need, it subsidise it for those that do?

tim



  #9  
Old May 12th 14, 02:48 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
The Natural Philosopher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,728
Default Net neutrality

On 12/05/14 10:06, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2014 08:52:28 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/05/14 19:32, alexd wrote:
7 (for it is he) wrote:

The ISP should never be allowed to open the
packets and inspect it to make judgement calls.

Different routes may have different costs for an ISP.

indeed. without 'opening the packet' it cant do routing.


They don't need to look at the data though, just the header.

well the port is part of the destination and source as well, so opening
the header allows discrimination based on port and hence service type,
and indeed whose network the packet comes from. Or whither it is bound..

Can you envisage e.g. BT, NOT giving priority to its own servers packets?

"Our network is fine, its nothing to do with US is it?"

And that is of course the nub of the whole issue. When the line between
packet carriers and content providers gets blurred....




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

  #10  
Old May 12th 14, 02:50 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
The Natural Philosopher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,728
Default Net neutrality

On 12/05/14 11:37, tim..... wrote:

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 May 2014 08:52:28 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/05/14 19:32, alexd wrote:
7 (for it is he) wrote:

The ISP should never be allowed to open the
packets and inspect it to make judgement calls.

Different routes may have different costs for an ISP.

indeed. without 'opening the packet' it cant do routing.


They don't need to look at the data though, just the header.


But isn't the information required here in the header?

I don't know how the internet works, but when I used to work on sending
voice over private data networks there were different classes of data
packet.

Those which need to be delivered in the right order with the same delay
every time (AKA audio/video streaming) and those where you don't care
(the rest). You didn't need to read the data to find this out, the
sender told you as it was in his interests to do so

And if providing a network to satisfy the former costs more, it doesn't
seem unreasonable to ask the people who use it to pay that extra. Why
should those who don't need, it subsidise it for those that do?


well that's another wholly different argument, like why should a city
dweller subsidise rural telephone and postal services..

OR healthy people subsidise sick ones etc etc...


tim





--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

 




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Net Neutrality - Sign EU Petition - Do it or lose it! Brian A uk.telecom.voip (UK VOIP) 15 January 30th 11 12:33 PM
Net Neutrality - Sign EU Petition - Do it or lose it! Rob uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 0 January 24th 11 12:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2019 BroadbanterBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.