Slashdot Mirror
Oracle And Cisco Both Support The FCC's Rollback Of Net Neutrality (thehill.com)
An anonymous reader quotes The Hill:
Oracle voiced support on Friday for FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's controversial plan to roll back the agency's net neutrality rules. In a letter addressed to the FCC, the company played up its "perspective as a Silicon Valley technology company," hammering the debate over the rules as a "highly political hyperbolic battle," that is "removed from technical, economic, and consumer reality"... Oracle wrote in their letter [PDF] that they believe Pai's plan to remove broadband providers from the FCC's regulatory jurisdiction "will eliminate unnecessary burdens on, and competitive imbalances for, ISPs [internet service providers] while enhancing the consumer experience and driving investment"... Other companies in support of Pai's plan, like AT&T and Verizon, have made the argument that the rules stifled investment in the telecommunications sector, specifically in broadband infrastructure.
Cisco has also argued that strict net neutrality laws on ISPs "restrict their ability to use innovative network management technology, provide appropriate levels of quality of service, and deliver new features and services to meet evolving consumer needs. Cisco believes that allowing the development of differentiated broadband products, with different service and content offerings, will enhance the broadband market for consumers."
Cisco has also argued that strict net neutrality laws on ISPs "restrict their ability to use innovative network management technology, provide appropriate levels of quality of service, and deliver new features and services to meet evolving consumer needs. Cisco believes that allowing the development of differentiated broadband products, with different service and content offerings, will enhance the broadband market for consumers."
Oracle and Cisco want to sell hardware and services to the ISP's to manage their traffic prioritization
The two biggest fuck-wads in the corporate world of IT.
some decision is wrong when Oracle/Larry Ellison decides to support that decision.
This is only good for everyone that doesn't consume or create content on the internet..
Double dipping barstards!!
Yeah... whoever wins, we lose.
#DeleteFacebook
This... is why I have stock in Juniper Networks and not Cisco. I have a moral compass that guides me when I survey the stock market. This is another reason I won't purchase stock in "One Raging Asshole Called Larry Ellison" as I refuse to pay for his lavish lifestyle as he tramples world+dog under his feet. Maybe someday the adage will change... "Nobody got fired for picking Cisco"
Peace out.
I own Sisco stock. Bad investment.
It's finally getting to where I can sell it for a gain equal to my savings account.
I only own a little. It was part of my learning experience in the land of investing.
At least I won't lose money on it, after 15 years.
Sisco is crap.
Oracle is trying to preserve a day gone by. Rather than doing something new, they're sticking to the old business model
Sell your Oracle stock NOW!
>Cisco has also argued that strict net neutrality laws on ISPs "restrict their ability to use innovative network management technology, provide appropriate levels of quality of service,
I don't know what "innovative network management technology" is except maybe some expensive Cisco hardware. But, QoS and net neutrality aren't incompatible. T-Mobile uses a variant where they will throttle your bandwidth after 30GB of data but only if the network is in heavy use where you are located. Which seems reasonable, unless they've changed the plan again.
Neither one invented or makes the internet a more viable experiment, both can go suck their respective markets to late stage enterprise death. I'll never put my money towards either so long as I live.
You did some nice things with your database, but your nauseating business practices have overshadowed the technical achievements for several years now. Good riddance to you.
It's fun, watching the scum self organize.
Hint: If you are ever on the same side of an issue as ATT, it's probably time to evaluate your life's choices to see where you went wrong.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
went to nvidia to update driver, got it ok, was on nvidias home page saw some auto detector thought what the heck lets see if this works
NOPE out of date java .....click to get new
go get cant reinstall
go through google etc to make sure i do right thing everone says uninstall
cant cause in temp dir i dont have proper permission on a few java files
OK SCREW THIS SHIT
right a scipt to take ownership cause this theme is getitng on my nerves
test it on other stuff works great
highlight the java files and.....
BOOM
windows 7 64 bit DIES and i mean this would make you all go fuck me this shit wrecked my pc...
i had to have it repair stuff 4 times( rebooting and it then did one repair to actually fix the hard drive) to get it back ,
then i was able to finally uninstall this piece a shit
fuck you java
and hte error it gave trying to install the oracle site i'll quote it
"under investigation"
haha if i had cash for a lawyer id sue there arses
they like suing everyone be nice to see a class action lawsuit on them
that error apparently has been there for 2 years i hear
yet i was able to update until this last one while others had issues like this.
The common refrain I hear from ATT and other companies is that net neutrality stifles innovation. I fail to see how. Can somebody please enlighten me?
They want to sell stuff to manage the traffic prioritisation. True net neutrality will force innovation on an equal playing field for all members of the network. it truly is a content of ideas... with one group wanting to build a pyramid in which all the plebs get ripped off at the bottom.. or a neutral environment in which all players are free to express and do business equally - a place where the best ideas and service wins. Of course they want to rig the system. I say boycott Oracle and Cisco... screw those asshats.
I didnt need another reason to hate both of these pile of shit companies.
Big companies tend to have the budgets to oursource their solutions to companies like oracle. Many entrenched fortune 500 companies use Oracle's horrid software databases to manage their tiem and effort reporting, etc... Small companies with stronger needs to have a competitive edge go with other cheaper smaller scale back office solutions.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Since consumers ALSO want traffic prioritized, this seems like a win-win - the actual technical people know it, the consumers know it, the only people that have not figure it out are the "techie" people of Slashdot.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Here's a question: are you upset that the site/app you're reading/watching is using your bandwidth to serve ads to you?
If you're on a metered plan, you probably are.
Now take a step back (I know, it's hard) and pretend you're an ISP. Why do I, as an ISP, need to build out my network so that some Silicon Valley company can serve ads to my subscribers when the subscribers don't even want ads?
Let's try something else: 2% of an ISPs base is using 85% of the upstream and downstream bandwidth for torrents. Can you throttle their traffic?
I'm sure a lot of people will say "don't oversell your bandwidth." Yeah sure, welcome to reality. But is it fair to let 2% of your subscribers screw the other 98% of your subscribers? Those 98% are paying customers of both you the ISP and, say, Netflix. Why can't you touch that 2%?
Is throttling a violation of the "net neutrality" regs? I'll bet you don't know, because you never read them. Try reading them. It's not hard.
Let us, the engineers, technologists, and supporters of the Internet remember this, and use this knowledge when choosing network and database vendors.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Are happy to support your ISP in fucking you over.
Let me guess... promisses of buying new equipment infrastructure is a great incentive to sell out, right?
F*ck Cisco. And I don't even have to say anything about Oracle, the litigious troll company. Oracle has to die in a pool of fire for the stuff they've been doing lately.
Cisco knows, because it's their entire business to know, that some flows need low jitter, and bandwidth isn't an issue (voip for example, 64Kbps bandwidth is plenty, any significant jitter is unacceptable). Other flows require high bandwidth, and don't care about jitter or latency (Netflix for example). Other flows need low latency, regardless of jitter (gaming for example). ISPs pay Cisco billions to deliver the type of flow you'll want for each application.
You can do almost nothing about any of those metrics on your local network. Its up to the ISP to route, queue, drop, and police packets in order to provide you the right flow parameters for each application.
while enhancing the consumer experience
I'm dying to know how consumers benefit when you sell their private information. Please elaborate on this. Are you counting on them all being sadomasochists?
...(Oracle) played up its "perspective as a Silicon Valley technology company," hammering the debate over the rules as a "highly political hyperbolic battle," that is "removed from technical, economic, and consumer reality"...
Translation: "We're a knowledgeable and trustworthy tech company, and we know better than even the tech sector workers who create our products and services, so you should listen to us, not them. We don't like it that so many of those workers support Net Neutrality, so we're trying to pull rank. We'll also pretend that we both know and care about 'consumer reality', (even though it's patently obvious we know nothing and couldn't care less), because we'll happily polish our stinking turd of a strategy until it shines like gold, so long as there's even a minuscule chance that we'll gain some support for our plans for world domination".
... Oracle wrote in their letter that they believe Pai's plan to remove broadband providers from the FCC's regulatory jurisdiction "will eliminate unnecessary burdens on, and competitive imbalances for, ISPs [internet service providers] while enhancing the consumer experience..."
"unnecessary burdens" == anything that reduces the ability of ISPs to do whatever they want in the pursuit of profit
"enhancing the consumer experience" == forcing a consumer experience that's the cheapest, most convenient, and most profitable for us
... Other companies in support of Pai's plan, like AT&T and Verizon, have made the argument that the rules stifled investment in the telecommunications sector, specifically in broadband infrastructure.
Translation: Companies like AT&T and Verizon withheld investment in their own infrastructure in order to create an artificial scarcity so they could tighten the screws and persuade people that abandoning Net Neutrality is the less painful alternative.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Which is odd, since they definitely have the expertise and knowledge to know that FUCK ALL about Net Neutrality cuts into their QoS equipment. Unlike the simpler and unpatented equivalent that others use because CISCO wants to keep that shit for themselves.
No, the only limit on how to shape your traffic is when you do it based on the IP address/domain name. Need to reserve for VoIP? Not a problem. Want to reserve more for VoIP if it's from YOUR subsidiaries? Problem.
You would have thought CISCO would understand.
And who the fuck is Oracle in this? They have fuck all to do with it. They just want restrictions gone because there's a religious component in corporation personhood that insists that any interference in the market is bad, unless it specifically aids them.
It says you can't discriminate based on source,NOT on port. Need less jitter? QoS on the VoIP port. Still 110% legal under NN.
Need less jitter? Throttle Skype? 100% illegal under NN. But that doesn't stop jitter, it only throttles the use their customers pay to put the internet to. And allows them to "ask" Microsoft to "pay to upgrade" the service, AND charge their users more "to pay for the service" of using Skype.
So how does NN interfere with controlling jitter? Port throttling for all sources does that just fine. And if Comcast throttle http video, they either throttle their own VoD stream too, or they're committing a crime. Or they build their network to handle what they sell their network to the enduser to do. E.g. watch Netflix/Amazon/whoever VoD.
"T-Mobile uses a variant where they will throttle your bandwidth after 30GB of data but only if the network is in heavy use where you are located. "
NN doesn't interfere with that, since the throttling is based on all traffic, not "selecting for you" based on where it comes from.
See, if they blocked http requests to slashdot, they could offer you a plan to allow slashdot in busy times, AND offer a plan to slashdot to avoid being part of the throttled traffic. But that's why you and slashdot bought that access to begin with. This is double-dipping. Hence against the NN law. But if they throttle all stuff, they can't threaten both of you, and if they demand a higher price to allow the bandwidth they advertised to be used, you can leave. Slashdot has to leave every customer on that network.
So there's much much less opportunity to double dip and demand money under threat of disconnection with NN, but it does not interfere with throttling all traffic.
If they throttle traffic too much they will lose customers. And they'll piss off *both* their competitors (e.g. ones not signed up for a co-advertising deal or offering a service in competition to their partners) and their partners too. If they were allowed to choose who got throttled, they could please their partners AND kill their competition.
Balls, bollocks and bullshit.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Since each end user location (think individual home) has a single connection to the internet through a single ISP through which the occupants of that location may need to (per your example) concurrently play a streamed game, stream a movie, and make a VoiP call, how does that ISP realistically argue they can provide different quality and speed of connections to all members of the household at the same time?
Nothing stifles innovation like laws, supported by Verizon/Comcast/Time Warner/ATT etc., preventing communities from building their OWN infrastructure for what should be a public utility. But, yes, it does stifle their profits, which they want to equate with innovation. Its not. Communities building a telecom network operated for the common good.. new there's innovation.
With the advent of cheaper orbital costs and cheaper satellites the ability to jump ship from long time American monopolies is coming, not just from Elon but any company that follows in his footsteps.
It was also pretty messed up to have the same NN rules for mobile networks and traditional wired ISPs. They made more sense for wired ISPs. The only reason I supported NN to begin with was a lack of competition. If we had true competition it wouldn't be needed. There is much more competition in the mobile network space.
Just wait until someone starts lobbying to have 'golf course neutrality'. Once deals on the golf course have to have the same scrutiny as other deals, the likes of Cisco and Oracle will meet their demise.
I can see the value of both vendors products, but what I still don't get is why anyone buys more than a modicum of it. With Oracle, the DB is fine, but once you move to RAC then you're on the bandwagon and getting off it is very hard. You'd have been better off re-engineering out your legacy when you outgrew the non-RAC solution.
For Cisco, again, their core switch stuff seems pretty good - it's not really my area, but the specs are impressive. Why we need Cisco top-of-rack or Cisco workgroup switches is beyond me though. In the workgroup case especially, other vendors offer better and cheaper solutions (sure, they don't do all the stuff Cisco can do, but you don't need that in a workgroup switch). For some reason though, if you're not 100% cisco then you're somehow a weirdo and 'not doing it right'.
Then Cisco Call Manager... very capable, but man is it weird - I mean, born in the fires of Mount Doon and then shat on by every ork in Middle Earth. Weird.
IMHO, both companies need to die off - Oracle is already going that way, in so much as all the small databases of the world are Postgres/Maria/MySQL/No SQL or whatever, and not paying Oracle for the privilege. Cisco is a harder nut to crack - no one would dare go up against them, but yet, if someone did, we'd all be better off as a result.
Dude why fucking lie for these scum bags? People are such fucking pussies these days.
Who cares if the people of the US are losing freedom, and getting less value for their dollar, when there are corporations who will make extra money! I, for one, am proud to become "consumer cattle" for the benefit of an ever-shrinking number of trust fund brats!
And before that, a contractor to CISCO - trust me, whatever side these companies are on, on any issue, is never the side that you should support. These companies evil incorporated.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
John Oliver made it easy to voice your opinion about the potential changes to the FCC's Net Neutrality rules. Just go to http://GoFCCYourself.com and it will take you straight to the FCC's actual Proceedings page for this. Click on the "Express" link to right and feel free to cast your comments for or against. John's URL just makes it easier to find.
If a data guzzling website has problems, the teleco can blame said website for using lots of data, and strongly suggest a more expensive data plan in order to get better performance on data guzzling websites. Cell phone data is also expensive. People with a cheaper data plan, will have inferior performance. The teleco will have to make a choice between performance and cost.
It seems to me that the staunch proponents are video and audio streaming websites. It seems selfishly driven, much like the PR of the so called 'STEM shortage'.
Start banning political websites, like breitbart, and the Huffington Post, then you will see action on net neutrality.
Consumers benefit from prioritising traffic based on TYPE. They are HARMED by prioritizing it based on SOURCE.
That statement is inherently stupid. As a consumer, I want Netflix traffic in my house to take priority over web traffic OR YOUTUBE VIDEO that kids might be watching.
Sounds like I want traffic prioritized by SOURCE. Sounds like MOST people would want the same thing.
Sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I would love to watch certain TV programs live on my computer, just using the internet that I've already paid for!!! Net Neutrality enables that, and stops the ISP or the channel from preventing me from watching it. I don't agree w/ the parts of net neutrality that say, for instance, that you can't accelerate Netflix after having an agreement w/ them. But I do agree w/ the parts of it that say, you can't stop Bob Blow Joe from watching FNC on his computer directly from FNC's website w/o having to log in his ISP's TV subscription
People seem to be buying the positive message from telcos about rescinding net neutrality rules, and it resonates especially well with the "we hate government intervention" crowd. "No more rules that forbid us from making you a great offer". "Less rules means a fertile ground for innovative business". They don't see or understand the negative aspects.
The thing is they WOULDN'T see the negative aspects, even if there were any...
But you are totally discounting the fact that BECAUSE of supposed "Network Neutrality" they are ALREADY HAVING negative experiences for real, vs the pretend ones you are worried about and in real life either do not occur in most ISP's or are corrected quickly.
Seems like the normal people have a lot better idea about what is good or not than random techies that live in a fantasy universe instead of the one we have.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You don't really want traffic priority by source. You want your traffic to be more important than someone else's traffic. If you watched YouTube Red and the kids watched Netflix, you would want the reverse.
Aha, so you ADMIT that people would reasonably want traffic prioritized by source!!! It's just a matter of figuring out which source takes priority at which time. But it is something that people WANT, and it is very reasonable, and net neutrality is trying to take away as a possibility.
But lets be realistic. No one cares about shitty YouTube quality. They just want Netflix (and possibly HBO and a few other sources) without buffering.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You don't really want traffic priority by source. You want your traffic to be more important than someone else's traffic. If you watched YouTube Red and the kids watched Netflix, you would want the reverse.
Aha, so you ADMIT that people would reasonably want traffic prioritized by source!!! It's just a matter of figuring out which source takes priority at which time. But it is something that people WANT, and it is very reasonable, and net neutrality is trying to take away as a possibility.
But lets be realistic. No one cares about shitty YouTube quality. They just want Netflix (and possibly HBO and a few other sources) without buffering.
I did not "admit" that people wanted priority by source. I pointed out that even YOU don't want priority by source.
You want your stuff to be faster than others stuff, for whatever site you happen to be using vs whatever site they're using. It's not the same thing.
ISPs already sell this difference. You can buy access at any speed they offer. If you buy 100 Mbps and others by 20 Mbps, they've sold you faster access than the other person.
I took your use of "that kids" to mean "other users of the network", could be anyone doesn't have to be kids. But, if you really meant, "kids in the same house as you", then just setup you own router to do QOS for the internal network to give them less priority. That's totally fine on your internal network and not a problem.
If you really did mean, "other users of the ISPs network", we're back at that the ISP should not be in the business of deciding which content is more important or which customers are more important than others. They sell an access product. They can sell different speeds of access already, or quantity of access (which I dislike caps, but that's at least neutral when applied to all and not when stuff is exempted), or committed vs best effort service. All fine. They don't get to pick which content is "better" though, that's abuse.
> Port throttling for all sources does that just fine. And if Comcast throttle http video, they either throttle their own VoD stream too, or they're committing a crime.
I think you just answered your own question. Most http requests, most port 80 flows, aren't video on demand. Therefore treating all http as if it were video means handling most of it *wrong*, creating a worse experience for the user. The delivery of a text-based site such as Slashdot has opposite performance metrics as pre-recorded video, and live video has different needs depending on if it's one-way of video conferencing.
Also, I guess it would be illegal for an ISP to store/cache their own videos at their POP for better efficiency and performance, since they can't possibly store every video from every web site at the POP? Unfair advantage to store the frequently-accessed stuff close to the users and make it faster, right?
It's possible to work toward net neutrality as a principle. As a law, I don't see how you could possibly write a law that didn't have major unintended consequences. Network optimization is just too complex for law makers to decide how it must be done five or ten years later, using technologies that don't even exist at the time they write the law.
If you're not going to actually deliver Internet, why call it an Internet service?
If providers called it an "online service" instead of an "Internet service", the average subscriber wouldn't notice nor care. They just want Facebook.
Oracle is going to make a ton of money selling user tracking databases.
Really? Oracle master plan is to crush net neutrality so they can sell more database licenses to "track users"?
Yes, as you said, duh. Do you recall when Oracle billed California for per-user database licenses based not on the number of users accessing the database but rather the number of citizens in the database?
What's next, Staples will jump in so they can sell more pens to Netflix who will sign a bunch of checks to ISP? How the fuck can people come up with such ridiculous theories is beyond me.
Given that super-realistic Netflix check-signing scenario you envisioned, I can see how it would be hard to imagine or assess the actual possibilities.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Net Neutrality is that set of rules that allow bicycles to share the roads with cars. Without those rules, road providers would certainly limit their roads to delivery vehicles and charge them for access. Sure, cyclists could pay those fees to gain access as well, but would quickly be priced out of the market.
Your entire post argues for the existance of Net Neutrality.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
And now instead of buying a commodity router with QoS features, you will be paying Netflix and your ISP more every single month for them to do QoS for you, and poorly. What if your Dad a) pays for the fucking internet and b) wants his porn to have higher priority than your stupid Netflix stream because he, again, pays for the fucking internet?
Why does the ISP get to decide when your Dad can get off? This is going to shift the burden to your Mom, and she will not be pleased!
The intent of the law is so Big Company A doesn't pay Big Monopolistic ISP a bunch of money to prioritise their traffic over Little Company B, C and D.
It is the ISP customer who is supposed to be able to make that choice by paying for the level or type of service they want.
Without net neutrality, the cloud provider with the biggest pockets can stamp out their competition simply by paying to have their traffic made faster.
A big cloud provider who doesn't have anything better to offer than their competition, like Oracle.
Multiple flows over the same peice of copper is the entire POINT of digital communication and packet switching.
You realize of the packets and flows leaving your house don't go to the same destination. So why the *hell* would they be put into the same queues or policed the same way? Most of the work is done on flows (roughly tcp connections), not on physical network ports. So to use your example:
> concurrently play a streamed game, stream a movie, and make a VoiP call, how does that ISP
The game has probably at least two flows, control and content. The control flow is all about latency. It requires nearly no bandwidth, the gamer doesn't care about jitter, they want the lowest possible latency above all else. Reliability definitely counts - packets should be retried. So you put that flow through the low-latency, low-bandwidth path. "Lowest possible latency" implies high jitter, and that's okay.
The voip call again uses damn little bandwidth, but this time jitter is the most important thing. Reliability doesn't count -
undeliverable packets should NOT be retried. Retrying would actually make the connection worse. For best voice quality, you want the ISP to *delay* each voip packet to make to take just as long as the last one. Otherwise you say "automobiles" and the person on the other end of the line hears "smoautobile". That's easily done by moving your game packet ahead of the voip packet, so that the voip packet doesn't arrive early.
Then you have the Netflix flow. For the Netflix flow, neither latency nor jitter matter. Reliability requirements are moderate - only retry recent packets. Only bandwidth really matters. So those go in the "high bandwidth, high latency" queue, to be delivered after your gaming and voip packets are delivered.
Yeah that's the intent, and that's great.
Unfotunately, legislators don't know why users WANT their VOIP packets delayed.* They don't know network jitter from doing the jitterbug. So their chance of writing a law that a) Comcast can't find giant loopholes in and b) doesn't completely fuck up proper flow management is about 0%.
* If you deliver each VOIP packet as quickly as possible, when you say "do not call me" the person on the other end might hear "not me, do call".
* If a UDP packet for an RTP stream comes in out of order, it's timestamp and sequence numbers doesn't align so it's dropped. It doesn't get played in the wrong order.
I don't WANT my voip packets delayed. I don't want my ISP prioritising video streaming websites over my voip provider because the streaming sites have lots more money to spend.
Thanks for pointing that out. So "do not call me" becomes "do call me". That can be avoided by processing a video packet (pr any other packet) ahead of the early voip packets. By delaying when necessary to minimize jitter, the voip doesn't drop out.
If Netflix pays to upgrade ISP backbone, then Netflix has a right to decide which stream should get priority. And yes, if my dad pays extra to ISP to increase porn bandwidht, he has a right to do so. If I deny that right, he can always install 802a router for me which connects to his 802ac router and will give me only 802a router password. I would rather have a low BW when he is watching porn than to have low BW all the time.
As I said, both sides have a point. I didn't bring out positives of net neutrality because gazillions on this thread did, but not a single one talked about the other side. Perhaps the same blind eye attitude that happened in last election. Try to at least hear the other side instead of dismissing it. You can mod my slashdot post down, but can you mod my vote down?