Slashdot Mirror
Cisco Opposes Net Neutrality
angry tapir writes: All bits running over the Internet are not equal and should not be treated that way by broadband providers, despite net neutrality advocates' calls for traffic neutral regulations, Cisco Systems has said. Some Web-based applications, including rapidly growing video services, home health monitoring and public safety apps, will demand priority access to the network, while others, like most Web browsing and email, may live with slight delays, said Jeff Campbell, Cisco's vice president for government and community relations. "Different bits do matter differently. We need to ensure that we have a system that allows this to occur."
Somehow in my mind Cisco and Oracle are the same company. Maybe I have reached my dotage, but when I see one mentioned the other may as well be there too. They are like Satan had identical twins separated at birth.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I will continue not buying Cisco's products.
I prefer my bits non optimized than someone else deciding how they should be "optimized" for me. Thank you!
in an effort to keep customers after the Snowden leaks... this is your play?
Cisco, how you have fallen, and will continue to do so!
... true solution?
Some countries are light years ahead of others in terms of Internet connectivity, speeds, etc.
Don't hold back technology - make it affordable and accessible to the public. Advance the civil Internet connectivity via governments(?) so all could benefit and such stupid suggestions like Jeff Campbell's, or "fast lanes" won't be needed to begin with? Maybe?
This means Comcast & TWC will be purchasing more network equipment from Cisco. They won't upgrade infrastructure to deliver better service, but they'll happily buy equipment that prioritizes traffic (slows down traffic coming from non-paying sources) for the purpose of double dipping by charging both you and Netflix/Amazon/Google/etc.
Its a shame they don't have a vested interest in hardware capable of making such a thing possible.
I would have to agree with them. I can wait a few milliseconds more for an web page packet, but my Netflicks pausing to buffer is not OK. This isn't a net neutrailty argument, it's quality of service (QOS) scheduling. I'm of the belief that net neutrality is ISPs not actively throttling traffic based on the sender, receiver or protocol. If a packet gets delayed a millisecond, but the net throughput is the same, I;m not really going to notice.
I'm pretty sure all traffic will be able to go just as fast as it needs to, without anyone paying more for the privilege.
Some Web-based applications, including rapidly growing video services, home health monitoring and public safety apps, will demand priority access to the network,
Do health monitoring devices get priority access to electricity? Does the electric company get to decide which devices will be shut down first? Can they shut down your devices before they shut down your neighbor's, because you bought Sony instead of Samsung? Would it be good for the electric company to be allowed to negotiate priority access to electricity with the appliance manufacturers?
Net neutrality is about protecting the more important free market -- the free market in information -- by requiring the carriers to compete only on price and overall performance of their network.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
The internet had, since IPv4, provisions for exactly this, and whole careers have been built by this. It goes by different names, Type of Services, QoS, Traffic Engineering. IPv6 has also provisions for this, so did ATM in its time. MPLS has a HUUUUGE component of this...
Having said that:
Video on Demand traffic from, say comcast, should have the same priority as video on Demand traffic from youtube or netflix (or some future cash strapped start-up).
Videoconferencing traffic from skype should have the same priority as videoconferencing trafffic from google+ o Cisco (or some future cash strapped start-up).
Web traffic from yahoo should have the same (slighty lower) priority as the web traffic from "mom & pop web server".
You get the drift, not because some big company is willing to pay more, or the ISP wants to double dip you can play with the priorities.
And THAT is net neutrality for y'all!
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
Net neutrality is the idea that data from any provider (rich or poor, powerful company or a single guy, corrupt or honest) is treated the same way on the network.
Cisco's comment concerns the prioritization of data depending on its type. I see nothing wrong with that.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Architecturally, Cisco's point has merit (aside from being purely an excuse to sell higher-margin fancy-shaping hardware, rather than brutally commodified really-fast-switching hardware). Some applications are more latency sensitive than others.
However, there's a serious complication that Cisco is either ignoring or doesn't have any reason to care about: the mechanisms for doling out 'priority access to the network' and 'slight delays' are more or less target agnostic. There is nothing magic about hypothetical VOIP-911, Granny Accelerometer, or whatnot that makes it easy to identify them as "justified" prioritization and leave everything else alone.
If you have the system set up to promote and demote traffic based on type, origin, destination, (or any similar set of parameters sufficient to plausibly identify 'important' traffic, rather than just basic TCP congestion behavior), you can promote and demote whatever you feel like writing rulesets for. Given that the last-mile is pretty much buttoned up by a cozy oligopoly of incumbent telco and cable outfits, does anybody seriously expect the shaping to stop at making sure those 'public safety apps' get the message out in time, rather than paying lip service to ensuring that 911 calls go through and then moving on to the actually profitable business of chopping the internet up and attempting to reach optimum price discrimination and suppress competition?
So, barring major changes in the competitive landscape, or some sort of regulation-indistinguishable-from-magic, agreeing with Cisco on architectural grounds;but still rejecting the idea on the balance, is a perfectly cogent position(you can argue that it isn't correct; but it's not contradictory): Yes, traffic prioritization will allow better performance of latency sensitive applications (if they are in fact prioritized) all else being equal. However, once you have the architecture in place for that, the economic incentives to go nuts with it are absurdly compelling. By comparison, 'just grow your way out of it' isn't architecturally elegant; but it provides a nice, aligned, incentive for ISPs to build out and people who want more performance to buy fatter pipes, rather than for ISPs to let the infrastructure rot and focus on squeezing every penny out of every user.
Health monitoring, public safety apps, growing video services. One of these things is not like the others, and yet these companies still insist that they can have a completely fair and unbiased tiered system. I guess we should be thankful that video services is merely considered on par?
How does net neturality impact QOS in IPv6?
I mean, if you aren't allowed to give some packets higher priority, then doesn't that make the whole point of getting a quality of service guarantee moot?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Now I know which company to avoid in the future, thanks Cisco!
Net neutrality doesn't help them sell their very expensive hardware.
I'm not sure that I like having my web pages load slowly so that somebody else can watch Keeping Up With The Kardashians jitter-free.
Exactly. We keep having debates framed by PR firms and their $$$ so we avoid the real issues and get stuck into weaker positions. Net Neutrality doesn't make phones(SIP) equal to crappy video streaming (http.) Actually we should be yelling at network admins fire walling everything outside port 80! netflix should be using rstp or something identifiable as video streaming- their abuse of http should be the reason their service has troubles not because comcast is into extortion.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
If you're doing anything as critical as home-based life support system monitoring and you're literally trusting your life to your ISP, then you're already well past the point of screwed.
While I agree that fast lanes should not be needed, just as they don't seem to be needed today (how many times the definition of the human eye does HD need to be, anyway?) it's important to understand that smaller countries can achieve faster internet speeds more easily due to their relatively small real estate. The number one factor affecting latency is distance, and the US has a lot of ground to cover.
That doesn't mean Comcast and TWC aren't still screwing us when they "do not compete against each other in any area" (direct quote).
Wait, Cisco wants to support a new network paradigm that would result in a market for new hardware, worldwide? This is America where lobbying new product lines into existence, is routine.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Except that even where U.S. city/suburb densities are as high or higher than said small country, internet access still sucks. This probably accounts for %60-%80 of the U.S. population. (Maybe not E. Asia, but certainly a good chunk of Europe.)
Other things small countries can do that may be more difficult for the U.S. to do:
1 - Have a true national plan for rolling out internet, rather than Country, State, County, Municipality, Neighborhood, and Individual plans. (Individuals in this case being people who object, maybe with some merit, to unsightly telco boxes on or near their property and do something about it, messing up the plan, either requiring the telco box to be moved or for them to go through city planners and/or court to get permission to place the box on the person's property.)
2 - Dictate how the internet is going to be rolled out. Similar to 1, but not quite the same. Possibly have "country wide" municipal broadband, with individual providers riding off of state owned infrastructure.
3 - Not deal with U.S. Corporate lobbyists. It seems we have world class corporate lobbying. Our lobbyists are so strong that they can convince us the price we're paying for Internet, Health Care, Cell Service, pick your overpriced product is as good or better than the rest of the world, that the reduced service we often receive along with the high prices is really better than the rest of the world, and that all the multiple ways we pay our ISPs to improve their infrastructure, through taxes, directly through our internet bills, through "back door deals" like Netflix paying both their ISP and the end user's ISP to deliver content will actually improve much of anything. (The latter seems to have, but only because that one entertainment provider has paid to improve that one service on that one monolithic ISP.)
4 - Laying down new infrastructure rather than dealing with a hodgepodge of existing infrastructure. This one is actually pretty important. Especially since some of that old infrastructure - land lines - are something ISPs/telcos are still federally mandated to maintain. . . unless this has recently changed. Also, they may have more uniform wiring, and access to that wiring, in their larger buildings.
Now they are both going to sue me for the slander of associating each with the other. They'll probably both win too, and have to sue each other over fractions of my soul. But the judge will be in on it and award both the same soul three times each.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
nuff said.
Vice president of whatever... not an engineer. I read one of his letters to a congressional committee and it seems obvious that either he is a lawyer or had it drawn up by Cisco's legal council.
In other words this guy has never used a router.
This person has no idea how the Internet works.
He shouldn't be speaking about things he doesn't understand. Cisco had some good engineers who I really respect, with a few still working for them. If someone with enable wants to speak up in favor of a stupid policy that every operator knows is a bad idea then I might listen.
Who would have thought Cisco prefers the world attempt to deploy foolish and hopelessly complex inter-domain prioritization schemes requiring $$$$$$ Cisco solutions to implement?
In an encrypted world, outside of designating port usage and everyone respecting it (which I envision entities like Netflix doing), how would you differentiate different types of traffic?
Frankly, net neutrality is the *only way* as networks get more opaque.
I have a customer who is currently with Time Warner Cable and their speeds have gone down significantly over the last 6 months. They used to be able to access web sites with split-second response times. Now the average is at least 5 seconds before a web page comes up. I have placed numerous support calls, they come out and run their own hosted speed test which claims they are meeting speeds. They then leave saying there is nothing wrong, yet browsing is almost unusable. I believe they have QoS turned on so that their own speed tests run fine, yet the overall browsing experience is significantly worse. If they are playing these games now, what will happen when net-neutrality is eventually abolished by these big souless corporations?
Quit playing Monopoly with Bill.
Linux - of the people, by the people, and for the people.
This is abusing the internet architecture. The whole idea is that services don't rely on speed and delivery, but work with the network architecture to ensure that whatever service they provide is able te deal with delays. This means that if ISPs want happy customers and companies want their internet product to work properly, they have to ensure that there's enough room on the entire network to deliver those services adequately.
Now some company that sells equipment that can prioritize packets of certain services so network providers can get away with saturating the data links more starts flipping the principle of the internet around. Sorry, no, that's not the *internet* you are talking about Cisco. That's a private network in which some company gets to say what they think is important.
Every individual company owning a network will have different priorities. Try connecting thousands of private networks with different priorities and different technologies to achieve those and make that work. This is what Cisco is proposing we do to the internet and it will be a pain to try it and chances that it will ever work are close to zero. Part of why the internet works is because we have a global goal of just routing packets without prejudice. Don't mess with that, it will end in tears, unhappy customers and only a few rich C level executives at router producing companies.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
I see two problems: 1) How should the high priority/premium flag be controlled ? The ISP can't know the technical requirements of all services, i.e. they don't know if a certain special designed Machine to Machine communication needs low latency.If the ISP charges low latency, then they would categories certain traffic as latency critical, in order to charge more. If the software it self can open the connection in a 'premium mode', then applications might do this secretly in order to generate a revenue stream to its developers. If this have to work, then the one paying the internet bill need to decide if he wants to pay the premium for a given traffic. The one paying is not necessary the one using the computer/tablet, this could be a kid unknowingly to parents approving a 'premium' service. 2) The ISP starts to degrade performance of non-premium trafic. The argument of the ISP would be that: since a connection is not paying for low latency/high throughput, then we will throttle the connection, even if the infrastructure of the ISP has not reached the limit.
If there's sufficient bandwidth for everyone then net neutrality won't be a problem now will it? Either someone light a fire under these goddamn ISPs and make them stop stalling on upgrading shit, or force them to stop lying to their customers about how much bandwidth they're actually paying for. Also Cisco is a shit company and can go fuck themselves.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Of course a network vendor is going to point out that some packets needs preferential treatment over others. It's something they've worked to engineer into their product lines because their customers demand the capability to do so. For an ISP, 911 VoIP packets are a much higher priority than World of Warcraft packets.
Too many folks are caught up in the idea that prioritization is bad. There's a difference between between the philosophy of Network Neutrality and the operational reality of packet prioritization.
Saying Cisco opposes Net Neutrality just because they're pointing out some simple truths on how network operate today is like saying Glock supports terrorism just because they make guns.
Of course, if the title weren't sensational, no one would probably read it.
It saddens me that Slashdot seems to have decided that they need to resort to the same tactics as the National Enquirer
I oppose you and your products, I don't use them at home. And I use your competitors products when I do professional work.
Om, nomnomnom...
Why would you need QOS and traffic shaping if you have adequate bandwidth? Thats what we pay for. We are already paying for them to deliver VIOP or streaming video by paying for the bandwidth. If the provider can't deliver what they sold, thats not the end users problem, its the provider's problem. But once I pay for high bandwidth that guarantees my VOIP and all the other stuff they want to prioritize, why should I pay more? I"VE ALREADY PAID THE EXTRA CHARGES!!!! They want to just make you pay more for everything. Its as simple as that.
Just provide the FSCKing bandwidth you sold me you FSCKing bastards!
DERP DERP don't regulate. Don't say THIS is approved and THAT isn't. Allow the market to do exactly what it's best at - make a choice.
Please, but pretty-please, buy more traffic-shapers from us. Otherwise we are coming to the end of the road with nplain old network gear. We need to peddle more stuff. what a bunch of self serving idiots.
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
The headline is up to Slashdot's usual standards I see. They are talking about quality-of-service, which is a common and uncontroversial measure to prioritise traffic which needs low latencies over traffic for which that is less important. They aren't talking about prioritising Comcast's video streams over Netflix' video streams! This has nothing to do with "opposing net neutrality", it's just bad, sensationalistic reporting.
Cisco simply see a big profit to be made by selling new kit that is specially designed to be able to determine which traffic is from where and priorotize (a bit like QoS but for providers rather than traffic type).
They don't give a shit about the whole neutrality debate really... just more sales. Who cares who or what it harms? Sales comes first!
Different kind, yes, treat different...
Different providers / brands, No way, hand-off
I got here late, but TFA is a lie. Stating the obvious (voice and HTTP are not "equal" to the client nor provider), doesn't make an official Cisco stance against Net Neutrality. In fact, most Net Neutrality proposals (every one I've seen officially submitted in Congress), would have allowed for such action. No Net Neutrality has yet prevented reasonable traffic grooming. It's designed to prevent Comcast from running a VoIP service with premium QoS and deliberately lowering the QoS of all other competing services. To keep all competing services at the same level is "neutral".
Net Neutrality is not "traffic neutral" It's "provider neutral" at least so far in every bill I've read. And that's the best way. Why force every packet to be the same when we know they are inherently not?
Learn to love Alaska
Before you lose yourself in flights of fancy, consider this. Cisco sells network gear, i.e. the stuff you need to implement multiple tiers of traffic. Only the more advanced, expensive, and high-margin gear will do that of course. Think: deep-packet inspection.
And you were actually wondering why Cisco is in favour of an Internet that needs advanced kit and against an Internet that doesn't need special gear to implement multiple tiers?
A bit slow at arithmetic, are you?.
You know, net neutrality is NOT "disable all QoS and AQM". We all know what happens when you don't priorize the inband control plane (BPDUs, routing protocols, etc) over the data plane on a clogged pipe, net neutrality certain doesn't forbid that kind of priorization. We also know what happens if you don't priorize certain infrastructure traffic (DNS, mostly) over bulk traffic when the last-mile pipes are running full: massively worse user experience.
Net neutrality is actually about "you must be isonomic to all services, including yours", so no sleazyballing like priorizing your shit video-on-demand service while degrading, e.g. Neflix. Provisions can be made to have emergencial traffic have strict priority (where what is emergencial traffic is defined, e.g., by presidential decree -- like Brazil did). It would be trivial for the, e.g., FCC to list service classes that can have priority, we even have a framework for that in the IETF already.
So, you cannot give preference to services from partner A over partner B if they're in the same service class. But you can give preference to real time medical data feeds (as long as you give equal preference to all of them). And all bets are off when the last-mile data pipes are full, you can discard whatever traffic class you like less.
How to best regulate peering is a lot more difficult, nobody has a good answer for that in the net neutrality framework yet.
With something you already have: Custom hosts files are better, by FAR, on multiple levels in efficiency + added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than ANY single browser addon + fix DNS security redirect issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish & trackers), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
** Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)
*** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - & bloating memory consumption too + hugely excessive CPU usage (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
SO - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"
...apk
That YOU paid for, with something you have already: Custom hosts files add speed, security, reliability, & anonymity better & more efficiently than ANY single browser addon + fix DNS security redirect issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish & trackers), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
** Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)
*** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - & bloating memory consumption too + hugely excessive CPU usage (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
SO - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"
...apk
Custom hosts files are better, by FAR, on multiple levels in efficiency + added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than ANY single browser addon + fix DNS security redirect issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish & trackers), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
** Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)
*** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - & bloating memory consumption too + hugely excessive CPU usage (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
SO - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"
...apk
Well, then I'm glad the NSA tampers with your filthy wares, you odious scum.
I've been saying this for years: as we leave copper telephony behind, E911 services over VOIP must be prioritized over other internet traffic.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
It has always been out of our hands: if Big Money wants the end of net neutrality, it will get it. There's nothing we can do.
Traffic analysis. Given enough data, patterns will emerge. Between what entities are communication conducted, what type, etc.
...with the specialized hardware for managing such an internet.
If 'concerned' companies like Cisco were really worried about important data getting through they'd be asking questions about why broadband in the U.S. is so crap on a cost/benefit ratio compared to other modern industrialized nations; and, if they were really concerned about health monitoring and public safety, they certainly wouldn't leave it up to the free market to safeguard those concerns - they'd want a separate protocol for those types of devices/systems.
Anyone who grew up with the early internet (by which I mean the very early 90's, not the DARPA days) and greeted each new increase in bandwidth with elation will recoil with horror at the thought of being throttled by some greedy middle man who YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING to get access to the endpoint you're now being screwed over.
I'm not one for espousing socialist policies, but I'd rather see all the fiber in the U.S. in the hands of the government than net neutrality be legislated out of existence and it be in the hands of Comcast. I know that's like comparing two handfuls of crap, but it would appear that some crap is worse than others.
Loading...
Cisco makes the routers that would handle the pay-for-priority schemes. They charge more for those than for the regular all-bits-are-equal routers.
So, of course they want to sell more of the expensive ones. Thus, net neutrality is bad for the bottom line.
Of course there is requirements for networks with different features compared to the current Internet, Cisco just have to realize that it can't call them 'Internet'.
'Internet' precisely define a relatively cheap to operate neutral network that don't grant performance. Anyone can use it like it want to as long at it contribute to it and don't cause problem to the others participants. This fact have a lot of implication on how the network is managed and how it is sustainable financially.
It's right that the internet is not the best network for a categories of uses cases that need granted performances. This is a justification to build a other better network that fit the expected requirement. Call it 'Servicenet' of you wants. But this not a justification the fight against the net neutrality of the Internet.
Well, you just lost my organizations future purchases.
Cisco, for example, could like priority given to the data they're forwarding to the NSA.
They stand to make millions on the new discrimination market.
The Cisco rep is describing QoS, which should be a good thing and the reporter made the jump to Net Neutrality.
Hmm. Cisco's main customer base is the internet providers, backbones, etc. Touting their qos capabilities and siding with their customers isnt surprising in the least. Though i do agree to some degree. some things do not require priority, but the decision shouldnt be based on the who the source of the feed it, but more the type of data. something thats not, say UDP or otherwise immediate-requiring, could be ranked lower (i think we all agree on this) but if its coming from your isp's competition it shouldnt be intentionally stifled on those grounds.
Oh look... A manufacturer of network hardware supports a position that has the potential to drive sales of new hardware which would streamline the delivery of tiered services. I'm stunned.
Considering the ire most people have for tiered cable/satellite television packages, I can't understand why there isn't more of a backlash against this.
This is not a network neutrality violation.
Network neutrality = traffic prioritization based upon source and destination.
Quality of service = traffic prioritization based upon content type.
Some Web-based applications, including rapidly growing video services, home health monitoring and public safety apps, will demand priority access to the network, while others, like most Web browsing and email, may live with slight delays, said Jeff Campbell, Cisco's vice president for government and community relations.
Cisco is talking about prioritizing traffic based on the content type, which is, and has always been, part of the internet. Everyone who has an IP phone probably has a router that supports this because you can't have your roommate's bittorrent connection preventing you from making a quality 911 call.
Stop using this term for things it is not! Every time it happens we lose ground on the network neutrality debate. One of the problems we have with advocating NN is that every time someone talks about QOS there is an article like this that confuses everyone. Reasonable people listen and think that what Cisco is saying makes sense, so they decide that they don't support network neutrality, not realizing that isn't what the discussion is about.
Cisco will sell the equipment required to maintain these "fast lanes" All their engineers are probably freaking out about this, but their Marketing and Sales departments are salivating.
Video streaming should *not* be prioritised over web page loading. Seriously, these gusy should know about buffering. Real time video calls, sure, but streaming doesn't need priority like that,
tldr; Cisco doesn't know what net neutrality is. NN regulates the throttling of traffic based on source/destination. QoS throttles based on type of traffic.With QoS /and/ NN, video/voice/other real time traffic takes some precedence on the network over http/bt/file transfers. That's not unreasonable, and it already happens everywhere.
NN would keep ISPs from making Netflix work better than your Plex server.
For those who want to let the FCC know how you feel -
http://www.fcc.gov/comments
I had the privilege of seeing the late, great Admiral Grace Hopper speak back in the early 80's. Something she said at that talk always stuck with me. In those days we began talking about "information science" (in fact my degree is in Computer and Information Science). She emphasized the importance of attaching value to information. "For example," she said. "Imagine there are two pieces of information headed to the computer's operating system. One piece of information says that a valve in the plant is over-pressure and may rupture at any minute, causing great damage and possible loss of life. The other piece of information says that Joe Blow did not get the proper insurance deduction taken out of his paycheck last week. Clearly one piece of information has more value than another, and so one piece of information should be processed first."
Cisco does have a point. It can be argued that certain bits of information are more valueable or important than others. The problem is not that we should weight bits, but how we're going about doing it. If the only criteria for assigning value is based on the bit generator's ability to pay, then we will build a very unfair and dangerous system. I am not against net neutrality because because I think all bits are created equal. I am against net neutrality because of how bits will end up being valued. Cisco says that video bits are more important than email bits. I agree with that. But if Cisco says that Netflix bits are more important than, say, Hulu bits, I will not agree with that.
It is not surprising that Cisco would make such a statement, regardless of how any of us feel about how bits are valued. They stand to make a lot of money designing and selling systems that weight and prioritize bits.
Proverbs 21:19
Sorry, I've been only vaguely aware of your Time Cube-esque ranting over the past few months, but I've wondered the entire time and am now asking, why would someone need a program to edit their hosts file?
The rest of you forgive the off-topic, please.
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
This is a very old position, and there's nothing unusual about it. Cisco's traditional view of of treating traffic has always been that more sensitive traffic, like voice, should be given preferential treatment over SMTP on LANs and WANs (which it should). Extending this to the net in general means that Netflix and gaming traffic would be given priority over web and pretty much any other kind of traffic. That's not the same as paying for preferential treatment irrespective of the nature of traffic, which is wrong. Should Facebook traffic take priority over Teamspeak traffic? That's where the real debate begins.
It's worth distinguishing between neutrality between actors, and neutrality between protocols.
It makes perfect sense to use QoS features to guarantee reliable availability of a small amount of bandwidth with very high priority (thus lower latency) for VOIP, while allowing downloads to consume a ton of bandwidth but get delayed slightly to get the VOIP traffic where it wants to be. We do stuff like this all the time at many levels and it's good engineering.
The concern about net neutrality is more at the level of, say, choosing to throttle companies you are trying to compete with. Although apparently, the real issue with Comcast and the like has mostly been not actively throttling, but merely failing to upgrade feeds enough to handle the load.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
NSA hacker feebs. They all get priority Flash Override. Hey Jeff, go fuck yourself with an Autovon switch. Your products are shit and your company can't go out of business fast enough to suit me.
Most of their sales come from gear designed to throttle / redirect (clone) internet traffic.
If net neutrality is enforced, most if not all ISPs will be ripping that equipment out as redirect (NSA snooping) won't be legal, and traffic sniffing won't be tolerated.
Here's why I think that.
Currently, groups like the MPAA / RIAA want to know if someone is hitting xyz "pirating" site and what they are downloading.
If net neutrality is enforced, the ISPs won't have a leg to stand on for having equipment designed to throttle / control network flows.
Without that leg, they cannot use the same equipment to snoop / monitor / watch / log activity as FCC regulations will not abide ISPs owning, let alone using equipment that "could" throttle traffic.
Cisco would have to scrap an entire line of equipment and make equipment that they wouldn't want to advertise as "NSA/MPAA/RIAA Watchdog" equipment.
> This means that if ISPs want happy customers and companies want their internet product to work properly, they have to ensure that there's enough room on the entire network to deliver those services adequately.
This is exactly what is running ISPs to ground today.
Companies like Google and other content providers charge end-users directly for their service, and use common-cost Internet to deliver it. Huge increase in traffic (hello MP3, hello video, hello torrents) causes ISPs to inflict costly upgrades of the network to keep the same income from end-users (who expect prices to go down). The same user who is trying to save every penny on internet connectivity will now gladly pay X$ for, say, internet radio service. ISP doesn't see any of that extra income, only increased costs.
The only solution is to share the income and the cost.
Asking ISPs to carry the burden themselves will run them to the ground, or cause market consolidaiton until you have monopoly (similar to what happens in USA).
> Every individual company owning a network will have different priorities.
Concept you described is wrong. It doesn't matter what are those priorities, nobody is proposing to have thousands of priorities. If you read the article this is also not what person from Cisco was proposing directly.
The way it happens in reality is twofold:
- when you get a "circuit", you can pay extra for guaranteed bandwidth. If a video or other content provider wants to have guaranteed bandwidth, they can pay for that, and receive that. All such requests being equal, as long as bandwidth is available. If it runs out, ISP should be earning enough to increas capacity.
- within each content provider traffic you can declare several classes with differing characteristics. Voice will require low bandwidth but top priority for minimum delay/variation. Video will require high or adaptive bandwidth, delay can be higher but with low variation. Content provider can pay for different classes differently, and receive certain bandwidth guarantees for each class.
Both those models exist for a long time (over 15 years) are actively used in existing ISP networks and actively sold - except that whole Internet is usually just one class of service without any specific guarantees.
There should be no problem introducing classes of traffic to the Internet. If video provider 1 wants to pay for lower class than video provider 2, saving money because they think quality should be ok - let that be. If they both pay for the same class, there would be no preference for one or the other though.
This is net neutrality.
Existing networking vendors gear can already (a bit better or worse) carry this out in practice. Obstacle is in financial/political layer - how to make payments for that work on a larger inter-provider scale, including ISPs and content providers.
> Try connecting thousands of private networks with different priorities and different technologies to achieve those and make that work.
> chances that it will ever work are close to zero.
It already works on global scale in the internet, just not on public internet. ISPs have years of practice implementing just that.
> Sorry, no, that's not the *internet* you are talking about Cisco. That's a private network in which some company gets to say what they think is important.
"Public Internet" is already a large private network (collection of smaller ones), where each ISP on the path of the packet can decide whatever he wants to do with it. There is not much public about it in reality.
Cisco can make lots of money selling hardware that moves different streams at different speeds.
I don't like it. I don't have to buy their products. I don't have to shop at places that use them for infrastructure. I don't have to support politicians that want to break net neutrality.
Cisco may see that sort of (blood) money in their future, but it isn't going to be coming out of my pocket. Maybe some other folks agree.
I'd wager that the problem lies in Time Warner's links to the tier 1 backbones, and not traffic shaping. If those links are saturated, as Level 3 and Cogent have complained about, then any traffic routed through those tier 1's will suffer. But the Time Warner hosted speed test will work perfectly. Technically, Time Warner is right, they are meeting requirements for the link form the customer's home to Time Warner. It's too bad they don't make any promises about usability.
Have you trace routed to popular sites or tried an independent speed test?
I absolutely want my traffic optimised. Your Bittorrent traffic can wait, whereas my VOIP call cannot.
Bullshit! And Bullshit squared. There is absolutely no reason to do this and what you say is NOT net neutrality.
1. The only place where traffic shapping of this type should happen is at the customer end, or at ISP on a per-customer basis. If you wan *your* bittorrent to be treated worse than *your* VoIP, that is *your* business.
2. Net Neutrality means ALL packets to all customers are treated the same irrespective of their perceived *content*.
The only QoS** that can be done by ISP are classification based on on *customer end-point*, be that their IPv4 or IPv6 network prefix. So if there is congestion on ISP side of the network, then the only throttling is for people that use the most bandwidth at that point in time. That way everyone gets a guaranteed X bandwidth over a given connection at any given time.
If ISPs want to avoid scenario where someone is transferring TB of data, well, charge for bandwidth an appropriate amount based on their network limitations. Right now that is what? $10/TB?
** - clearly, an exemption to this would be DDoS or DoS mitigation.
If you enforce anti-net neutrality in the way these companies are saying, you're a party to antitrust law violation.
Cisco or other vendors can make equipment for doing this, but I wouldn't want to be one of the higher-ups at a service provider who says they're going to use it for that purpose.
Have your customer stop using TWCs' DNS. I find this solves half the speed issue. The other, is actual network performance.
Personally, when I'm getting 3-10% packet loss to boundary points of TWC (peer points... interconnects...), they've got some serious issues going on within their network!
I prefer my bits non optimized than someone else deciding how they should be "optimized" for me. Thank you!
Indeed. If QoS becomes standard, then god-forbid you attempt to develop a new real-time network application, as the QoS won't recognize its real-time nature and so you'll get 500 ms ping times.
I really don't understand what need QoS is supposed to fill. There's an option for it on my router, and I once tried my best to utilize it. Netflix loves to figure out the size of your internet connection and use all of it, nevermind what anyone else in the house might want to do. So I tried to figure out how to fix this, but QoS isn't about giving everyone the share of the internet that belongs to them. It's about letting some users take bandwidth away from others. When the hell would I want that?
Say I have a dozen people in a house sharing one internet connection. Obviously I'd like to dedicate 1/12 of it to each person, and then, take whatever isn't being used at the moment by some people and divide that equally between everyone else. Then, if someone decides to make a VoIP call, it either fits in their share, or it fits when they get the leftovers, or they just don't get to fucking make their call, because if they want to have control over a larger fraction of the bandwidth, they need to pay more than 1/12 of the bill. So what if the other users are merely doing bittorrent? Presumably they're doing it because they want to, and they're paying for a share of the internet too, and so they can do whatever they want with it.
I really don't want my ISP to be doing any QoS. I don't care if they are oversubscribed. If they're oversubscribed ten to one, then guarantee me that 1/10th of my bandwidth -- I can fit a VoIP call in that just fine -- and let me have the rest only when its available. There's no need at all to take into consideration what type of traffic it is, and doing so will just screw me whenever other customers are doing something more blessed.
Jeff Campbell, Cisco's vice president for government and community relations, has no clue what he's talking about. Stupid Bosses.
Of course some traffic types need priority. You prioritize based on the type of packet. Go for it. Just don't do it based on who it's from or to. That is the basis of net neutrality.
He's either stupid, ignorant, or deceitful. it's bad when being ignorant is your best bet......
There is a big difference between Net Neutrality and the technological capability to prioritize certain *types* of traffic over others. What is described here is Quality of Service (QoS) and that is based on the type of traffic - not from whom it originates.
"Different bits do matter differently. We need to ensure that we have a system that allows this to occur."
Translation:
"Different bits do matter differently. We SELL systems that allows this to occur."
The ISPs should be legally limited to two types of traffic shaping:
1) Based purely on subscriber plan, without looking at traffic type. If you've paid for a better plan then me, your traffic gets weighted more heavily.
2) Optionally (if the subscriber requests it) they could shape based on traffic type, but only within the packets belonging to a specific subscriber.
That way, if we have equivalent plans then your torrent packets and my VoIP packets get exactly the same treatment, but my VoIP packets get priority over my torrent packets.
"A July 1999 IETF specification (RFC 2638) discusses paid prioritization by saying: “It is expected that premium traffic would be allocated a small percentage of the total network capacity, but that it would be priced much higher.” Another specification (RFC 2475) published half a year earlier says that setting different priorities for packets will “accommodate heterogeneous application requirements and user expectations” and “permit differentiated pricing of Internet service.” (An RFC is a policy document, often accepted as standards, published by the IETF.)"
I would also add that the abstract of RFC 2474 says:
“Differentiated services enhancements to the Internet protocol are intended to enable scalable service discrimination in the Internet”
http://www.digitalsociety.org/...
The ISPs should be legally limited to two types of traffic shaping:
1) Based purely on subscriber plan, without looking at traffic type. If you've paid for a better plan then me, your traffic gets weighted more heavily.
2) Optionally (if the subscriber requests it) they could shape based on traffic type, but only within the packets belonging to a specific subscriber.
That way, your web pages would get exactly the same priority as their video stream.
Why should your videoconferencing packets get priority over my netflix stream?
If we've both paid for equivalent plans, then we should have equal use of the network.
The only truly fair option is for ISPs to weight traffic between subscribers based on their plans, without looking at traffic type. Then within the traffic belonging to a single subscriber they could (if approved by the subscriber) do QoS based on traffic type.
To me, Net Neutrality means that all traffic (regardless of far end *or* type) should be treated equally.
The only fair way to allocate resources on a subscriber network is by doing traffic shaping based on the subscriber plan, *without looking at traffic type*.
Suppose we've both paid for an identical subscription. I use my entire bandwidth for streaming video and torrenting, you use your entire bandwidth for videoconferencing. Traditional QoS would give your packets priority over mine. Since we're paying the same, that makes no sense!
The ISP should shape both our streams based on our subscriber plans. As an optional step they could apply QoS to the traffic belonging to each individual subscriber, but that would only affect the traffic for that specific subscriber.
The simplest solution is:
1) ISPs apply traffic shaping to each subscriber separately, without looking at packet type, source, destination, etc. The only criteria are which subscriber the packet belongs to, and what level of subscription they've paid for.
2) As an optional step (opt-in or opt-out) the ISP can do QoS within the packets belonging to a particular subscriber. This would only affect that subscriber, nobody else. Ideally this would be under the control of the end-user in some way, via ToS packets, classification rules, etc.
with some very slight modifications:
"Your Bittorrent traffic can wait, whereas my VOIP call cannot."
-still "tastes" of a sense of self-entitlement whereas
MY Bittorrent traffic can wait, whereas YOUR VOIP call cannot.
makes exactly the same point.
"The infrastructure should be sufficiently robust that NOBODY's traffic has to wait" is more agreeable still!
Put another way ... I expect my video stream from Joe Blow Video Streaming should get the same priority on a TimeWarner network as CBS.com video streams.
I expect web pages from JoeBlow.com to be served up with the same priority as pages from CBS.com
Net Neutrality is about the source of the traffic ... it's not about the type of traffic ...
I do not expect that my web pages from JoeBlow.com be served up with the same bandwidth as my video stream from JoeBlow.com. That is a QoS issue based on type of traffic and is legitimate bandwidth management and is outside of the Net Neutrality question.
QoS is about the type of traffic ... it's not about the source of the traffic ...
So either Cisco is spreading FUD or they aren't talking about Net Neutrality.
From earlier comments, it sounds like the journalist who wrote the article confused the two (either wilfully or neglectfully).
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
How? This: Custom hosts files are better, by FAR, on multiple levels in efficiency + added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than ANY single browser addon + fix DNS security redirect issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish & trackers), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
** Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)
*** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - & bloating memory consumption too + hugely excessive CPU usage (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
SO - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"
...apk
Custom hosts files are better, by FAR, on multiple levels in efficiency + added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than ANY single browser addon + fix DNS security redirect issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish & trackers), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
** Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)
*** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - & bloating memory consumption too + hugely excessive CPU usage (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
SO - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"
...apk
okay so there's a public safety issue, and the traffic is prioritized, great. then the program at the other end receives the info and sends out a text message to first responders. and guess what? text messages are treated as low priority, so the overall delay is actually _increased_.
to make matters worse, let's say the public safety thing is spamming the alert, (maybe a design flaw in the program, maybe not), well that spamming is now prioritized, over, again, text messages, maybe even ip telephony, etc.
now you're causing congestion in times when congestion is the last thing you need.
and then a first responder finally gets on sight, and they don't know a medical procedure, so they look it up on the web, but guess what, web traffic takes the slow lane. or maybe its a video hosted by comcast - which isn't paying time warned the royalties it needs to not get throttled.
there's no telling before hand what information is needed, over what channels, over what protocols, and by who.
yes, all bits are of different value. but you don't know what that value is. that's the whole point of net neutrality.
For FREE 2 ways with a tool you already have - hosts files! They're better, by FAR, on multiple levels in efficiency + added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than ANY single browser addon + fix DNS security redirect issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish & trackers), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
** Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)
*** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - & bloating memory consumption too + hugely excessive CPU usage (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
SO - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"
...apk
Custom hosts files! They're better, by FAR, on multiple levels in efficiency + added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than ANY single browser addon + fix DNS security redirect issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish & trackers), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
** Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)
*** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - & bloating memory consumption too + hugely excessive CPU usage (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
SO - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"
...apk
Populate a file you have natively from respected security community sources: Hosts files!
They're better, on multiple levels, in efficiency + added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than ANY single browser addon + fix DNS security redirect issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish & trackers), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
** Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)
*** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - & bloating memory consumption too + hugely excessive CPU usage (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
SO - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"
...apk
Easily, for FREE, & with 1 file you already have: Hosts files are better, by FAR, on multiple levels in efficiency + added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than ANY single browser addon + fix DNS security redirect issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish & trackers), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
** Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)
*** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - & bloating memory consumption too + hugely excessive CPU usage (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
SO - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"
...apk
Even in THAT circumstance (& makes you safer too @ the same time): Hosts files! They're better, by FAR, on multiple levels in efficiency + added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than ANY single browser addon + fix DNS security redirect issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish & trackers), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
** Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)
*** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - & bloating memory consumption too + hugely excessive CPU usage (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
SO - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"
...apk
Custom hosts files! They're better, by FAR, on multiple levels in efficiency + added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than ANY single browser addon + fix DNS security redirect issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish & trackers), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
** Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)
*** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - & bloating memory consumption too + hugely excessive CPU usage (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
SO - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"
...apk
It streams in data from 12 reputable & reliable sources + is hosted (+ verified safe) by the security community where it is recommended as "best of breed" @ the top of said hosting site (Malwarebytes' hpHosts) -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
Then, it deduplicates and normalizes them for you: Try that MANUALLY with a text editor over MILLIONS of entries (since that is what you can potentially get) or even thousands, yourself, by hand.
It also reverse-dns pings your favorite websites so you get to them faster (faster than remote DNS resolutions) w/out the risk associated there in dns request logs, dnsbls, or Kaminsky flaw redirect security issues (of which 99.999% of ISP dns servers are NOT patched against, even when a patch has existed for ~ 7++ yrs.)
The data itself blocks ads (speed gain here too) & also secures you vs. all forms of malicious content online (malscript, malvertising, & known sites/servers that do so, blocking them out, thus, securing you) & helps vs. FastFlux &/or Dynamic DNS using botnets (which recycle/reuse domain names they paid for constantly by rehosting them on malicious hosting providers etc.) and also protects vs. spam/phish & trackers, etc. - et al.
For a FULL "rundown", visit its download link as to all the benefits it provides in added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity (FAR MORE EFFICIENTLY than browser addons & even protecting you vs. DNS' shortcomings as well).
APK
P.S.=> Most of all, it makes this process GUI easy - which IS what users use & want, for decades now... apk
Cisco, Oracle, and Verizon are not companies, they are racketeering syndicates. Our country would be better without them...
Okay, couple of things here.
It is very common for Net Neutrality and the prioritization of traffic to be equalized in their meaning, I believe frankly because people don't understand the difference.
The primary difference:
Net Neutrality: User A has the same possibilities as User B. For example, user A cannot pay to be guaranteed more than their fair share of a shared link. The idea is, the rate at which a user pays entitles the rate at which they connect to the provider on that first leg. My belief and opinion is that user A, by paying additional fees for circuit A, should have an understanding that the carrier providing service to them provides connectivity at their paid rate, where possible, to the interconnected carriers. The key here is where possible. If I pay for a 10 Gbps Internet feed, I'm not going to get 10 Gbps across every route I take, and in fact, the higher the speed I pay for, the less likely I will experience that speed across the common Internet.
Prioritization of application traffic: Application A requires and has available the optimized path required to pass the traffic. Application B, not requiring an optimized path, has available the path required for the application to operate within specification. There are discussed and developed standards out there in regards to the treatment of the different priorities of traffic. Carrier peering points should follow these standards. DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) is NOT needed at carrier cores to support this functionality. Diffserv Code Point (DSCP) markings, which is by far the most common QoS tagging in use, is part of the layer 3 header (OSI model Network layer) and so would be easily accessed to determine the appropriate prioritization of traffic and thus the actions needing to be taken or special treatment. The determination of the markings for applications can very easily be done at the customer-facing provider-edge devices going in to the provider clouds. This need not, and should not, be done at the core of provider clouds. I'm sure both Cisco and providers would agree to this point.
As for the mutual exclusivity of the two, they're not. In order to, as it's often put, fix the Internet, they both should be implemented as standard policies by the service providers as part of their SLAs. I believe the two challenges we are currently facing with these items is that carriers can't afford changing from their old ways to the way of supporting the next generation Internet, which needs Net Neutrality and Prioritization of appropriate applications as appropriate.
Another point I want to make: Business traffic is NOT more important than home user or personal traffic. I don't know why this is brought up repeatedly, but it's a major reason Net Neutrality is important.
And one last point, Net Neutrality is only a large issue because we don't have prioritization. If we had prioritization, the Net Neutrality issue would go on ignored because applications get what they need and perform well. If people need more bandwidth, they pay their provider for the increase of their local bandwidth to the provider cloud, not to the Internet.
Big distinction here: COMMON DAY INTERNET CIRCUITS ARE PAID-FOR GUARANTEES OF CONNECTIONS PROVIDING BANDWIDTH AVAILABILITY TO PROVIDER CLOUDS, NOT TO THE INTERNET.
I welcome a new player on the 'team' - are you the author? Great job bringing this tool to Macs DIRECTLY as you have...
* If you're it's author, you ought to submit your ware to hpHosts!
(Who work for/with MalwareBytes, a respected member of the security community, and provide the BEST of all the dozen hosts files my APK Hosts File Engine imports imo)
They host my app for me, so... they *may* be interested in linking @ least to your program too... just a thought/suggestion!
APK
P.S.=> Some fool downmodded you - what a shame this place has morons of that nature... hosts files are, unquestionably, FAR SUPERIOR to browser addons in efficiency AND in doing far more with less (1 file) adding more speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity online for end-users of them... apk
However, per my subject-line? It's still nice to see a "new player on the team" in a GOOD cause (adding more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity for users online the MOST efficient way possible, via hosts files usage).
The reliability & anonymity features are what I mean - you ought add a reverse dns ping system so users can speedup their favorite sites (even hostsman my Windows "competitor" doesn't do THAT) - which also in turn, increases reliability vs. redirects (even on /. to beta) especially vs. DNS security issues in Kaminsky flaw redirects (which 99.999% of ISP's DNS servers are NOT patched against oddly, even though a patch has existed for it for 7++ yrs. now!)...
You also don't seem to import, consolidate, alphabetize, & deduplicate + normalize data from a dozen sites (yes, there are @ LEAST 12 reputable & reliable sources for custom hosts file data out there.. actually, I know of 15 total).
Consider those features being added (again, IF you are its author that is)... & DO CONSIDER hooking up with MalwareBytes' hpHosts for linking to your app - they get a LOT of traffic & views, which would be good for exposure of your application + increasing it being downloaded.
APK
P.S.=> I can FAIRLY EASILY "port" my APK Hosts File Engine to MacOS X since it's written in DelphiXE2-6 code (which targets just about ANYTHING out there, including smartphones like IPhone & Android iirc), but I don't intend to, not yet (not till I "Open SORES" it, lol, but I don't intend to... not in the near future @ least - one day, I *may* put it out to SourceForge, the sister site of /. in fact/iirc, but... Today, is NOT that day!)...apk
Finally some sensible arguments against NN. Delays while doing operations over the internet.. Rather not.
And I'm sure Cisco has JUST the right tools to prevent that...
Privacy is terrorism.
My dad used to say, "Follow the money if you want to know what's really going on." As it is with Cisco... Cisco stands to gain enormously if providers implement a plethora of devices in the next few years to 'Manage' traffic. It's always about the money...
~MichaelWR
Net Neutrality is actually irrelevant for the majority of Internet users in the United States. Prioritization of packets (whether you call it QoS or Net Neutrality) will ONLY occur when network congestion is present, and most ISPs continually expand their networks to minimize congestion.