Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Never Really Existed?
dido writes "In his most recent column, Robert X. Cringely observes that network neutrality may have never really existed at all. It appears that some, perhaps all, of the major broadband ISPs have been implementing tiered service levels for a long time. From the article: 'What turns out to be the case is that some ISPs have all along given priorities to different packet types. What AT&T, Comcast and the others were trying to do was to find a way to be paid for priority access — priority access that had long existed but hadn't yet been converted into a revenue stream.'" Cringely comes to this conclusion after being unable to get a fax line working. His assumption that the (Vonage) line's failure to support faxing is due to Comcast packet prioritizing is not really supported or proved. But his main point about the longstanding existence of service tiering will come as no surprise to this community.
I didn't RTFA, but the mans comes to the conclusion that the big companies are out to get him on the basis that his fax won't work? Astounding logic! We should have been able to figure this out by assuming the companies are trying to increase profits.
The last time I tried to setup something similar, I came to a dead end, find several sources via Google that indicated that the compression used by fax machines was incompatible with the compression used by VOIP. Has the stat of the improved, or is Bob on a goose chase here?
"You can't dissect him, predict him, which of course means he's not a lunatic at all."
I don't know anything about Vonage , but if its like other VOIP systems it'll used lossy compression. Which is death for most kinds of digital to analogue systems running over a phone like using systems such as QAM or PSK since important information will be stripped out. This is why you can't use dial up modems over most (all?) VOIP services (why you'd want to anyway is another matter).
There's a difference between giving priority to different kinds of packets (QoS), and giving priority to packets from different sources, which is what Net Neutrality is all about. QoS is ok, it's encouraged so long as every packet of the same type gets treated the same way. The problem comes when your VoIP packet gets preferential treatment over my VoIP packet.
P.S. Fax is obsolete. Scan and email.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I use Bellsouth (now ATT). I had some serious issues sending faxes as well. One of the key ways to resolving this problem was to set the error correction levels on my Fax to the highest and to set the fax machine rate to the slowest possible speed. Doing this I was able to send and receive faxes with no trouble. The same worked for Comcast as well. This was also with Vonage. I used it with Comcast and VoIP some time ago, though. Perhaps things have changed in the last year or so.
I don't really know anything about the subject, but it's Cringely, so I'm going to assume that the opposite of whatever he said was true.
As someone who works on this for a living, I can tell you that most VoIP vocoders are not compatible with most high speed voice band modems and Faxes.
Most vocoders, such as GSM AMR NB, G.729 AB, G.723.1, are ACELP based (Algebraic Code Excited Linear Prediction) which basically parameterizes speech at the encoder and resysnthesises it at the decoder. These are specifically made for speech processing (and don't usually do well with music) and provide great compression with good quality (depending on the bit rate chosen).
Other compression, such as G.726, uses ADPCM (Adaptive Differential Pulse Code Modulation) which still works well for most modems and Faxes, but don't provide the best compression rates.
In the case where an ACELP vocoder is used on a line that is to support Fax or Modem connections, a Fax/Modem relay is used. In this case, your local VoIP box will have a Fax machine in it, as will the remote side of the link. You local Fax machine connects a fax session with the VoIP box, the decoded Fax data and signals are sent digitally using T.38 or other protocol to the remote VoIP, where it is connected to the remote Fax machine. These Fax relays often use specific network protocols (RTP instead of TCP) to reduce delay time (hence, lack of equal packet speeds (which is not the same lack of net neautrality that we are all resisting). Also, depending on the bit rate of the vocoder, this type of Fax/modem link may not support the highest standard connection rates.
Code Master
The Code Master
Back in the 80's, the net was carried by the CLECs. They did not give a hoot. Heck, we had not real security. I was able to connect to the modem at the univeristy with NO password and later my work modem pool at US West had just simple shared password. After all, it was local and long distance that carried the money.
When Clinton commercialized it, at ISPs were created, the CLECs still did not mess with packets other than that ALL Internet packets had the lowest of low packets on the ATM.
By 2000, qwest (old uswest) had packet shaping but I understood that it was only being used it to make sure that their employee packets got through.
2 years ago, Now, I have heard from a friend of mine that is there and they do shape based on other criteria, including who the packet goes to. In particular, qwest had a battle with cogent and SLOWED down the dns to them until they agreed to pay them more connect money. Basically, it has been turned into a weapon of sorts to have the big clecs control the small upstarts. Obviously, it will by used against end customes as well.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Spoken like a true Mac user!
As a former Vonage tech support rep, I can assure you that it is possible to get a fax line to work over a VoIP line.
I've only done it once with a baud rating over 4800, a few dozen times at or below 4800. Unfortunately, most faxes can't drop that low, even using the hidden system menus most have.
A single dropped packet often ends up as an unrecoverable error. Very few ISPs provide a stable enough connection to lose no data.
Latency is also an issue. VoIP lines have a much higher latency than POTS. People notice this as an echo, fax machines don't replay the signal but could easily time out waiting.
Also, at the time that I worked there, some of the techs were working on compiling a list of affinities that different model faxes had for different codecs. Higher bandwidth did not always get a fax working, seemingly arbitrary mid-range settings worked as often as low- or high-bandwidth codecs.
Net neutrality aside, don't expect a fax to work over a VoIP line.
ISPs *have* been prioritizing traffic for years -- usually based on packet content-type. I helped install a "packet shaper" when I worked at a mom-and-pop dialup shop in the early 2000s. The thing is, TFA missed a key point about Net Neutrality: proponents aren't fighting QoS type prioritization, they're fighting prioritization based on origin and destination. QoS services organize packets based on their content type -- if you wanted to cut down on illegal downloading but still provide a decent web experience, you would throttle down P2P type packets, but let http packets through. What big ISPs are trying to do is go to major websites and say "hey, we'll give you priority for $x/month. Oh, your competitors? We'll just throttle their bandwidth to nothing. But if they pay the big bucks and you don't, you're screwed." What TFA is complaining about (ignoring the VoIP/Fax compression issue already pointed out) is old-skool QoS, something we've had for years. Net Neutrality is about unfairly shutting out the competition.
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
All that (and the legal shield it provides) goes away if the isp *does* look at what the packets are and asserts control over them.
-=DaveHowe=-
You, and the other posters seem to have missed the one essential hook for net neutrality, indeed the only one that counts; Common Carrier Status. In order for you, and the phone company, and UPS to not be charged with a crime when someone does something illegal via your service you have to be a Common Carrier. Lacking that status you would be charged as an accessory to the crime even if you ratted them out first.
The cost of being a common carrier is having no content-based selection in what you carry. You must be completely neutral and select customers based upon what they are willing to pay not what they want to send. Once you hook things to what they want to send (i.e. content) then you are no longer a common carrier and you are responsible for knowing what is being sent at all times and answering for it if it isn't.
The issue here is twofold. Firstly the status Cringley is looking at might be more aligned to paying extra so the package moves faster type service which doesn't (necessarily) violate common carrier status. However , the argument that many ISP's are making is that they should be able to have their cake and eat it too that is, filter based upon content in order to make more money and stifle competitors while at the same time not being responsible for the legality of any content sent (i.e. child porn). Such a position is basically a whiny monopolists cant that I have no time for.
And yes it is true that the lines are private, in large part, but the service itself is still an infrastructural service and one that, like phone lines, has costs too significant to allow for basic competition. Not anyone can setup their own phonelines. As such that is the legal hook for government regulation and guaranteed fairness. Without it the dominant position of extant carriers (who built their power under the open competition regime but now want to shut the door on other competitors) would become so dominant as to be a monopoly and kill any hope for an open internet market.