So let me ask this then because I have been wondering it all day.
The value of any given track is set forth at 99 cents by Itunes. That is the product that is most compatible with the product she 'made available'.
Now, Itunes gets a cut of that and it is money that the record companies didn't lose, right? So could the defendant press for the financial details of who gets what from that 99 cents to figure what the damages to the actual record company are?
I personally think showing the world how much goes to the artist, the record company, and how much goes for distribution, would be quite interesting.
If they could even break it down to individual artists contracts with the record companies (because I'm sure there isn't a standard contract across the board), it might even piss off a lot of artists and cause even more damage to the record companies. I'd be pretty irritated if I was on the shitty end of the scale for my contracts. But that's just me.
Could such a tactic actually stand a chance? Wouldn't it be my right to receive the details in order to base a correct damage amount?
Did the mechanic inform you at least a day ahead of time that if you installed this part on your car, while using these other parts, your car would be break?
When you pulled the car in to the docking bay, was there a sign you had to read before you could continue that told you this part was going to break your customized car?
Once in the docking bay with the hood up and the part in his hand, did the mechanic come over and yell in your face and tell you that this part was going to render your car useless?
If he did all of those things, and you still asked to install the part anyway, then you're right it's just like the software update from apple.
Of course, if all of this happened exactly this way, and you still want to sue the mechanic because it's his fault, you are probably having a hard time understanding this anyway. Sorry for so many multi-syllable words.
I could imagine a company that is being sued for blocking bit torrent transfers bringing in the logs to show exactly who you downloaded from (ip anyway), what you downloaded (if it isn't encrypted at all), and when you did so. They can most assuredly show connection requests for specific files whent hat request is not encrypted and passes through their deep packet inspection system.
I would definitely make sure that the folks involved in said lawsuit weren't having illegal file transfers blocked as that could be pretty detrimental to the case, relevant or not.
Some do throttle. And isn't setting QoS on the networks what got everyone riled up about Net Neutrality to start with?
Some ISP's hold the view that you hosting files for others to download qualifies as a server and should be blocked. I don't really see a legitimate way to argue that, when my ToS say no servers.
Some don't really care and are just waiting for the day you get busted by the RIAA, since it is mostly the very high consumers of bandwidth that account for all of the subpoenas they receive. They are more than happy to provide the data and shut that customer off.
In 2000 TeliaNA bought the assets of AGIS out of bankruptcy. With that purchase they owned a complete US Backbone. That network was sold to Aleron, then Powernet Global, and I think it now resides with Cogent. Prior to them buying AGIS they only had a facility in New York and cross country circuits to Santa Clara.
So you answer to your question would be, since 2000.
A) It's not the backbone that is having issues. It's the edge network. The line that actually connects to your house is where the bottleneck is. Not the backbone.
B) It costs a lot. In the case of a fiber drop, it can be 3-5k per house, if they use the cheaper PON solutions.
C) The time cycle to build out a new network is longer than the technology cycle that drives the bandwidth demands. By the time it is finished, the bandwidth demand will be 10 times what the estimated it to be. Unless they are one of those folks that can see accurately 5-10 years in to the future and know what innovation will be next, they will miss their guess. If they are one of those guys, they have bigger and better fish to fry.
If it were cheap, a lot of companies would be running connections to your house. When the Telco's were ordered to open their network and allow other companies to use their infrastructure, you had hundreds of companies wanting to offer you DSL service, because they didn't have to build an infrastructure. There was no risk in leasing a copper line you had a customer for. There is a lot of risk in running a fiber optic line to every house in any area. Especially low income areas.
Cable companies built their own infrastructure. It was built for television. There was no Internet when cable started. There was no High-Definition TV and Radio. If you consider when and what the cable infrastructure was really built for, you cannot say it has performed poorly.
The cable companies have upgraded and most plants are now at least fiber to the node. The Telco's are now overbuilding their own copper plants with fiber optics. It's a venture in which they may never break even. When you're looking at a 5k nut just to place a box in the customers house, you'd have to charge 50 bucks a month for 10 years just for the line, assuming every house you passed became a customer. Internet service and TV would be over the top options and cost more.
The Telco's are building a new infrastructure. But only in certain cities. Take a look at the ARPU for those markets and you'll see they are cherry picking the big spenders. Only going to places that they think can support 2 infrastructures and still make a profit. Unfortunately, these are the areas that already have the best service in the country and don't benefit as much. The well to do customers currently have more choices than the rest of America, and pay less on top of that due to the increased competition in the area. But that's big business.
It would be nice to wire the whole country with a national infrastructure that can be leased by anyone and maintained by the government. Only a few small things stopping that from happening. The government didn't want to be in that business when they turned the internet over to private interests. The government does not have the ability to build such an infrastructure and would have to contract that out to people who, which are only the telco's and cableco's at this point. The telco's and cableco's have absolutely no interest in building a network for the government that's sole purpose would be to put them out of business.
That's the situation with the wireline market. There is no quick fix for it.
Wireless last mile is another option that as of yet had very little success in the US. It is much cheaper to roll out a wireless infrastructure, but it is not cheap by any means. Until now the real issues, beyond a still wet behind the ears technology, has been a lack of national spectrum that a carrier that wanted to provide this service could use. Wireless currently available as a commercial product is very local in reach and more times than not it has been set up a local enthusiast. Consumer take rates on wireless have been dismal.
It may be that the current spectrum auction will give a player a real chance at this market, and who knows, our lives could be changed and everyone could suddenly have cheap and unlimited connectivity. But that's not an unlimited resource either and should it h
While there are advanced or honors classes for some of the basics, you are still in a class with above average students, but not really geared towards gifted.
In elementary and middle school, they were more likely to have you skip grades than anything else. At that point you just end up in a class with older 'dummies'.
Encrypted P2P still has a fingerprint. While they don't know what is in the file, they do know it is P2P and it will be rate-shaped along with the rest of the p2p.
Encryption would work on foiling AT&T's filtering technology. They can't decrypt a flow on the fly without the NSA's secret pass key. The NSA wouldn't give that to AT&T as AT&T has not been very good at keeping secrets lately.
Why would they have any thought at all that making copies of your movies, pictures and music is sacred and they shouldn't touch it? I'm actually kind of surprised to find that this crowd, so vocal about the right to share music etc, doesn't feel the same way when it comes to their own personal movies, music, and pictures.
A whole generation of kids have grown up with the ability to obtain any media they wanted, for free. The RIAA/MPAA have been saying it was stealing for years and have been mocked non-stop. Why all of a sudden are so many people upset? Or is this somehow different?
You still have your images, videos, and music. They just made a copy. Nothing was stolen. Right?
Google is already in business with cable and satellite companies. Google has bought a large chunk of the ad slots available and will serve ads based on user habits. Echostar is turning over 100% of their veiwer measurement data to Google. It has been scrubbed (removing your account id basically) but they know every remote click you make, when you make it, and what was on exactly at the moment you decided you didnt want to watch it. Very cool but also very scary.
Product placement inside shows has already reached the point of absurdity, but I'm sure taking away the ability of the programmers to force you to watch ads will make it only worse.
If they had their own network, they wouldn't need to use TMobiles, one would assume.
Or are you saying they should build out their own infrastructure and sell phone this service that way? Of course, I'm sure they would have to raise their rates in order to pay for the infrastructure they had to build to offer their product.
This sounds so familiar.. I'm sure I have heard this same business model before. Oh right.. Vonage..
Wasn't much a fight since verizon was in favor of letting them add customers. Of course, if Verizon wins, that will be that many more customers for Vonage to have pay royalites for.
And I'm saying, that little note will not buy you what you are hoping it does. It cuts deep but misses all of the vital organs and leaves a big red sticky mess everywhere. A much more surgical strike is needed. Make it illegal to purposefully degrade anyones service. Make it illegal to filter legal content. But if you make it illegal for me to continue to offer MY services on MY network at a guarunteed class of service, I have other options and I will use them. That is not any kind of threat, so don't see it that way. That is just a fact.
As I said previously, I really hope it doesn't come to this, but I'm pretty sure it will. Pass legislation, but pass the right legislation, or the solution may be worse than the problem.
If AT&T or any other provider purposely degraded a competitors product, Id be at the front of the advocating they be stomped in to a mudhole. To my knowledge though, this is not happening and is not being considered by the major carriers.
If AT&T were to QoS their service through their network and just left Vonage alone to dwell in Best Effort land, is that acceptable? Should it be regulated? I don't think it should be as it is their infrastructure, but then, how could a company such as Vonage which has invested 0 in a network infrastructure compete on a fair basis with people who have spent billions? Well, they couldn't, and thats why you see them demanding the new rules.
It doesn't really matter though. With a completely seperate IP network to run their own services over, they have the best of both worlds.
It will be hardest on the provider that reaches congestion first. Customers will switch networks, as is their right. But as all networks become more congested with Video products that are not be generating additional revenue, you will see more and more networks become congested. Maybe one provider will think it's better to keep throwing money at the infrastructure that has been regulated to be a shared resource without a shared cost, but I don't see it happening. Hopefully, I'll be surprised, but I don't think so.
Sorry, the laws I was referring to was net neutrality, not any personal laws you may wish to make.
I am for certain net neutrality aspects. No provider should ever intentionally degrade a service on their network, competitor or not. But they should be allowed to sell a higher class of service. of course, thats just the type of thing a educated poor person would say is unfair as it favors those with money. They would be right if they said that, because it does. Businesses like money. Strange, I know.
You are advocating passing a law that impacts a business model. Do you really believe that any corporation would just accept that or would they pursue another more attractive business model? If they are worth their stock value, they would pursue a more rewarding business model. As a stock holder, that's what I would hope for.
If you felt I was being presumptious or rude, I apologize. I had no intention of being either. At this point I don't care if net neutrality passes. I think it would be incredibly stupid to pass it in it's current form, but that is just my opinion and only time will tell if my prediction will be accurate.
Just to clarify: I may have responded to a Republican thread, but by no means am I a Republican or a Democrat.
Stop right there! Business models have to stay in line with regulations and laws. Your bussiness model ends where my rights as a voter, taxpayer, and U.S. citizen begin. Ayn Rand mental gymnastics don't hold up in court, or on the street. In a Free Market Economy(tm) it is imperative that poorly integrated, poorly executed business models fail. They should not be granted governmental protection from failure because thats communism. If a provider oversubscribes, eventually they will wreck their own reputation unless they... Thanks for the support. You are right. They will change their business model because the shared public internet model will fail.
No silver bullet there either. They still need Public RF spectrum/Right of Way to build. They already own the wire, but they depend on the patience, kindness, patronage, and tax dollar of John Q. Public in order to run that wire from point A to point B. They want desperately to reneg on the deal they made with John Q. Public, but before the shenanigans can begin, they need permission from his elected officials. This 'internal' network you speak of WILL NEVER EXIST unless stupid and|or corrupt public officials allow it to. Sorry. they already exist and with the full blessing of the local municipalities they passed through. They didn't just string 1 pair of fiber when they did their build. They strung 24 or 48 or..
And it already exists. The largest internet provider in the US is building a dual backbone network. One for 'internet' and one for 'internal' traffic. Staring a hurricane in the face and telling it that it doesn't exist won't help much.
As soon as these companies realise that they have regulations to follow and laws to obey, they will actually have to innovate, rather than retard the services they sell. Playing by the rules won't kill anyone. What I described IS playing by the rules. Or are you going to make new rules that fit your idea of what they should be doing? This new rule will require every private network in the country to be usable as 'Internet' infrastructure? If you make it so a business model fails and the company adapts a new business model, who is to blame?
Your idea of fair regulation will not make things better. In fact, every thing will get a lot worse. Your provider is selling you a best effort service, and while those pipes are under utilized, everything is great. As it becomes necessary to keep pipes closer to capacity due to business models and the average user continues to consume more and more bandwidth, services will start to fail. Video over IP will be one of the first to suffer performance degradation. Then Voip. Then any real time interactive apps. That's what happens when a best effort service is all you can get and voip and video traffic can't be given a higher level of service. Of course, the service providers will build another 'closed' ip network for their own services and they won't have to deal with the result of this brilliant solution.
Your solution of regulating equal treatment is going to lead to a more closed off Internet as service providers stop throwing money at an open infrastructure and starts spending on their own 'internal' network that will carry their services at whatever priority they want and not have to deal with it. Of course, anyone else wanting to offer a high level of service for their product could connect to this closed private network and have their services delivered with better quality than the folks who are still using the best effort 'internet' service.
Never happen, you say? It already happens. Cable delivering VOD over closed IP systems. Phone companies running their voip over closed networks. Can't you hear the service rep now? "Oh, I'm sorry sir, that 40 dollars a month is for a best effort service connected to the public Internet. We have no control over the quality of the service that run on that network. Would you be interested in connecting to the ComWarnATTizon private ip network? For an additional 40 dollars a month you can receive your video, phone, interactive services at the best performance levels we have to offer as well as a connection to the old Internet . Should I sign you up?"
Believe me or not, you should bookmark this. You're going to want to reread this in a couple years. There are valid legislative actions that could put an end to all of this, but it will probably take everything getting fubared before antone is willing to logically look at the issue.
It's not on the router. It's on a network device such as Sandvine, TippingPoint, Ellacoya etc. And yes, there are encrypted P2P apps. And they still have a fingerprint easily indentified by those boxes.
As far as the OP goes, AT&T didn;t agree not to throttle P2P. They agreed to treat p2p the same. Throttle one, throttle them all. You're going to have to make a different argument for not getting your latest dvd of girls gone wild throttled.
They will be able to offer you your 6 megs of service, but at a much higher cost than you are currently paying. You're probably paying 40 bucks or so for 6 megs. That same 6 megs of traffic is costing your provider probably a hundred a month for the transit, if you used it 100% , 100% of the time. They are banking on you not using it. If everyone starts to use it, someone will have to pay for it. That will be you. It won't just be 1 ISP that raises rates, it will be all ISP's. Your new 6 meg down cost will be double or triple it's current cost. I am willing to pay the price for that service personally, but most folks aren't.
I have said for years that the Internet business model is broken. Eyeball and content providers are building out nationwide networks to carry their traffic but still pay someone like Level 3 for transit. Instead of legislation telling the ISP's to keep supporting a broken business model, they should pass legislation mandating networks interconnect. Forced peering I suppose would be a good word for it. Legislating a problem that doesn't exist may seem like a big deal, but my company has no intention of ever censoring or restricting/throttling someones traffic. Our biggest concern is who is going to pay for all of this traffic. How do we continue to offer you 6 megs of traffic at 40 bucks a month?
The whole point of the Internet was interconnecting networks, not everyone paying 1 company to carry their traffic to each other.
I hope I am wrong and none of the problems I see heading our way actually happen. Unfortunately, I don't think I am and I see a very troubled future in the US (worldwide even?) for networks. I think everything is going to have to break before it changes, and that is in noone's interest. Let's keep trying to pass legislation to cure a problem that doesn't exist and ignore the one that is staring us in the face.
I am more than willing to build out my network, but why should the content providers and myself keep paying a 3rd party when we can connect directly and remove those costs and increase quality at the same time? Oh, because some of the largest ISP's are also the transit providers and refuse to interconnect for free. (AT&T being the perfect example).
Note: Google is already peering so this does not really apply to them. The more content that comes from them directly and not my 3rd party transit provider, the less I spend on transit. This is one of reasons for their huge fiber network. Anyway, the less I spend on transit, the lower my per meg cost can be to you. I prefer not to raise your rates. I'd like to lower them. Without connections between the eyeballs and the content, this is not possible.
I'm saying it's not just as simple as "opening up full bandwidth on the pipe" as was stated by the previous poster. Their is cost associated with it and it someone has to pay it.
Net Neutrality legislation that is being proposed would prevent them from offering a QOS service to make sure your VOIp/IPTV apps have the bandwidth they need and not just best effort on a congested network. Some people are under the impression that there is a lot of free bandwidth out there, and that isn't the case.
Slashdot Mirror
So let me ask this then because I have been wondering it all day.
The value of any given track is set forth at 99 cents by Itunes. That is the product that is most compatible with the product she 'made available'.
Now, Itunes gets a cut of that and it is money that the record companies didn't lose, right? So could the defendant press for the financial details of who gets what from that 99 cents to figure what the damages to the actual record company are?
I personally think showing the world how much goes to the artist, the record company, and how much goes for distribution, would be quite interesting.
If they could even break it down to individual artists contracts with the record companies (because I'm sure there isn't a standard contract across the board), it might even piss off a lot of artists and cause even more damage to the record companies. I'd be pretty irritated if I was on the shitty end of the scale for my contracts. But that's just me.
Could such a tactic actually stand a chance? Wouldn't it be my right to receive the details in order to base a correct damage amount?
The same way as in the US.
You can use it on any carrier you want, in an unsupported fashion.
Modifying your phone and then applying software upgrades may destroy the phone, but you are legally within your rights to do that if you wish.
Being legally allowed to do something does not protect you from the outcome of your actions.
Let us make sure we are accurate here.
Did the mechanic inform you at least a day ahead of time that if you installed this part on your car, while using these other parts, your car would be break?
When you pulled the car in to the docking bay, was there a sign you had to read before you could continue that told you this part was going to break your customized car?
Once in the docking bay with the hood up and the part in his hand, did the mechanic come over and yell in your face and tell you that this part was going to render your car useless?
If he did all of those things, and you still asked to install the part anyway, then you're right it's just like the software update from apple.
Of course, if all of this happened exactly this way, and you still want to sue the mechanic because it's his fault, you are probably having a hard time understanding this anyway. Sorry for so many multi-syllable words.
It was locked to AT&T when you made the purchase. You knew that. You still bought it.
You didn't like that, so you unlocked it. Then you applied the upgrade and broke your phone.
This is not Apple's fault. It is not AT&T's fault. It is your fault. The issue is yours, not Apple's.
It most certainly could be.
I could imagine a company that is being sued for blocking bit torrent transfers bringing in the logs to show exactly who you downloaded from (ip anyway), what you downloaded (if it isn't encrypted at all), and when you did so. They can most assuredly show connection requests for specific files whent hat request is not encrypted and passes through their deep packet inspection system.
I would definitely make sure that the folks involved in said lawsuit weren't having illegal file transfers blocked as that could be pretty detrimental to the case, relevant or not.
Some do throttle. And isn't setting QoS on the networks what got everyone riled up about Net Neutrality to start with?
Some ISP's hold the view that you hosting files for others to download qualifies as a server and should be blocked. I don't really see a legitimate way to argue that, when my ToS say no servers.
Some don't really care and are just waiting for the day you get busted by the RIAA, since it is mostly the very high consumers of bandwidth that account for all of the subpoenas they receive. They are more than happy to provide the data and shut that customer off.
In 2000 TeliaNA bought the assets of AGIS out of bankruptcy. With that purchase they owned a complete US Backbone. That network was sold to Aleron, then Powernet Global, and I think it now resides with Cogent. Prior to them buying AGIS they only had a facility in New York and cross country circuits to Santa Clara.
So you answer to your question would be, since 2000.
That would not be correct, no matter how you spell it.
ABC gum is actually short for "Already been chewed". Not the alphabet.
Now, I have no idea what the words for that would be in Hebrew, but if they start with A B G, I stand corrected.
A) It's not the backbone that is having issues. It's the edge network. The line that actually connects to your house is where the bottleneck is. Not the backbone.
B) It costs a lot. In the case of a fiber drop, it can be 3-5k per house, if they use the cheaper PON solutions.
C) The time cycle to build out a new network is longer than the technology cycle that drives the bandwidth demands. By the time it is finished, the bandwidth demand will be 10 times what the estimated it to be. Unless they are one of those folks that can see accurately 5-10 years in to the future and know what innovation will be next, they will miss their guess. If they are one of those guys, they have bigger and better fish to fry.
If it were cheap, a lot of companies would be running connections to your house. When the Telco's were ordered to open their network and allow other companies to use their infrastructure, you had hundreds of companies wanting to offer you DSL service, because they didn't have to build an infrastructure. There was no risk in leasing a copper line you had a customer for. There is a lot of risk in running a fiber optic line to every house in any area. Especially low income areas.
Cable companies built their own infrastructure. It was built for television. There was no Internet when cable started. There was no High-Definition TV and Radio. If you consider when and what the cable infrastructure was really built for, you cannot say it has performed poorly.
The cable companies have upgraded and most plants are now at least fiber to the node. The Telco's are now overbuilding their own copper plants with fiber optics. It's a venture in which they may never break even. When you're looking at a 5k nut just to place a box in the customers house, you'd have to charge 50 bucks a month for 10 years just for the line, assuming every house you passed became a customer. Internet service and TV would be over the top options and cost more.
The Telco's are building a new infrastructure. But only in certain cities. Take a look at the ARPU for those markets and you'll see they are cherry picking the big spenders. Only going to places that they think can support 2 infrastructures and still make a profit. Unfortunately, these are the areas that already have the best service in the country and don't benefit as much. The well to do customers currently have more choices than the rest of America, and pay less on top of that due to the increased competition in the area. But that's big business.
It would be nice to wire the whole country with a national infrastructure that can be leased by anyone and maintained by the government. Only a few small things stopping that from happening. The government didn't want to be in that business when they turned the internet over to private interests. The government does not have the ability to build such an infrastructure and would have to contract that out to people who, which are only the telco's and cableco's at this point. The telco's and cableco's have absolutely no interest in building a network for the government that's sole purpose would be to put them out of business.
That's the situation with the wireline market. There is no quick fix for it.
Wireless last mile is another option that as of yet had very little success in the US. It is much cheaper to roll out a wireless infrastructure, but it is not cheap by any means. Until now the real issues, beyond a still wet behind the ears technology, has been a lack of national spectrum that a carrier that wanted to provide this service could use. Wireless currently available as a commercial product is very local in reach and more times than not it has been set up a local enthusiast. Consumer take rates on wireless have been dismal.
It may be that the current spectrum auction will give a player a real chance at this market, and who knows, our lives could be changed and everyone could suddenly have cheap and unlimited connectivity. But that's not an unlimited resource either and should it h
No, not really.
While there are advanced or honors classes for some of the basics, you are still in a class with above average students, but not really geared towards gifted.
In elementary and middle school, they were more likely to have you skip grades than anything else. At that point you just end up in a class with older 'dummies'.
Encrypted P2P still has a fingerprint. While they don't know what is in the file, they do know it is P2P and it will be rate-shaped along with the rest of the p2p.
Encryption would work on foiling AT&T's filtering technology. They can't decrypt a flow on the fly without the NSA's secret pass key. The NSA wouldn't give that to AT&T as AT&T has not been very good at keeping secrets lately.
Why would they have any thought at all that making copies of your movies, pictures and music is sacred and they shouldn't touch it? I'm actually kind of surprised to find that this crowd, so vocal about the right to share music etc, doesn't feel the same way when it comes to their own personal movies, music, and pictures.
A whole generation of kids have grown up with the ability to obtain any media they wanted, for free. The RIAA/MPAA have been saying it was stealing for years and have been mocked non-stop. Why all of a sudden are so many people upset? Or is this somehow different?
You still have your images, videos, and music. They just made a copy. Nothing was stolen. Right?
How would one show support for an artist that is giving their music away for free?
I definitely don't want to buy anything from the music stores..
So what would be a good way to support him on this, without feeding the mouths that are so upset..?
Google is already in business with cable and satellite companies. Google has bought a large chunk of the ad slots available and will serve ads based on user habits. Echostar is turning over 100% of their veiwer measurement data to Google. It has been scrubbed (removing your account id basically) but they know every remote click you make, when you make it, and what was on exactly at the moment you decided you didnt want to watch it. Very cool but also very scary.
Product placement inside shows has already reached the point of absurdity, but I'm sure taking away the ability of the programmers to force you to watch ads will make it only worse.
Welcome to the future.
If they had their own network, they wouldn't need to use TMobiles, one would assume.
Or are you saying they should build out their own infrastructure and sell phone this service that way? Of course, I'm sure they would have to raise their rates in order to pay for the infrastructure they had to build to offer their product.
This sounds so familiar.. I'm sure I have heard this same business model before. Oh right.. Vonage..
Snow Crash.
Hiro was a "freelance stringer for the CIC, the Central Intelligence Corporation of Langley, Virginia"
Wasn't much a fight since verizon was in favor of letting them add customers. Of course, if Verizon wins, that will be that many more customers for Vonage to have pay royalites for.
And I'm saying, that little note will not buy you what you are hoping it does. It cuts deep but misses all of the vital organs and leaves a big red sticky mess everywhere. A much more surgical strike is needed. Make it illegal to purposefully degrade anyones service. Make it illegal to filter legal content. But if you make it illegal for me to continue to offer MY services on MY network at a guarunteed class of service, I have other options and I will use them. That is not any kind of threat, so don't see it that way. That is just a fact.
As I said previously, I really hope it doesn't come to this, but I'm pretty sure it will. Pass legislation, but pass the right legislation, or the solution may be worse than the problem.
If AT&T or any other provider purposely degraded a competitors product, Id be at the front of the advocating they be stomped in to a mudhole. To my knowledge though, this is not happening and is not being considered by the major carriers.
If AT&T were to QoS their service through their network and just left Vonage alone to dwell in Best Effort land, is that acceptable? Should it be regulated? I don't think it should be as it is their infrastructure, but then, how could a company such as Vonage which has invested 0 in a network infrastructure compete on a fair basis with people who have spent billions? Well, they couldn't, and thats why you see them demanding the new rules.
It doesn't really matter though. With a completely seperate IP network to run their own services over, they have the best of both worlds.
It will be hardest on the provider that reaches congestion first. Customers will switch networks, as is their right. But as all networks become more congested with Video products that are not be generating additional revenue, you will see more and more networks become congested. Maybe one provider will think it's better to keep throwing money at the infrastructure that has been regulated to be a shared resource without a shared cost, but I don't see it happening. Hopefully, I'll be surprised, but I don't think so.
Sorry, the laws I was referring to was net neutrality, not any personal laws you may wish to make.
I am for certain net neutrality aspects. No provider should ever intentionally degrade a service on their network, competitor or not. But they should be allowed to sell a higher class of service. of course, thats just the type of thing a educated poor person would say is unfair as it favors those with money. They would be right if they said that, because it does. Businesses like money. Strange, I know.
You are advocating passing a law that impacts a business model. Do you really believe that any corporation would just accept that or would they pursue another more attractive business model? If they are worth their stock value, they would pursue a more rewarding business model. As a stock holder, that's what I would hope for.
If you felt I was being presumptious or rude, I apologize. I had no intention of being either. At this point I don't care if net neutrality passes. I think it would be incredibly stupid to pass it in it's current form, but that is just my opinion and only time will tell if my prediction will be accurate.
Just to clarify: I may have responded to a Republican thread, but by no means am I a Republican or a Democrat.
And it already exists. The largest internet provider in the US is building a dual backbone network. One for 'internet' and one for 'internal' traffic. Staring a hurricane in the face and telling it that it doesn't exist won't help much. As soon as these companies realise that they have regulations to follow and laws to obey, they will actually have to innovate, rather than retard the services they sell. Playing by the rules won't kill anyone. What I described IS playing by the rules. Or are you going to make new rules that fit your idea of what they should be doing? This new rule will require every private network in the country to be usable as 'Internet' infrastructure? If you make it so a business model fails and the company adapts a new business model, who is to blame?
Your idea of fair regulation will not make things better. In fact, every thing will get a lot worse. Your provider is selling you a best effort service, and while those pipes are under utilized, everything is great. As it becomes necessary to keep pipes closer to capacity due to business models and the average user continues to consume more and more bandwidth, services will start to fail. Video over IP will be one of the first to suffer performance degradation. Then Voip. Then any real time interactive apps. That's what happens when a best effort service is all you can get and voip and video traffic can't be given a higher level of service. Of course, the service providers will build another 'closed' ip network for their own services and they won't have to deal with the result of this brilliant solution.
Your solution of regulating equal treatment is going to lead to a more closed off Internet as service providers stop throwing money at an open infrastructure and starts spending on their own 'internal' network that will carry their services at whatever priority they want and not have to deal with it. Of course, anyone else wanting to offer a high level of service for their product could connect to this closed private network and have their services delivered with better quality than the folks who are still using the best effort 'internet' service.
Never happen, you say? It already happens. Cable delivering VOD over closed IP systems. Phone companies running their voip over closed networks.
Can't you hear the service rep now? "Oh, I'm sorry sir, that 40 dollars a month is for a best effort service connected to the public Internet. We have no control over the quality of the service that run on that network. Would you be interested in connecting to the ComWarnATTizon private ip network? For an additional 40 dollars a month you can receive your video, phone, interactive services at the best performance levels we have to offer as well as a connection to the old Internet . Should I sign you up?"
Believe me or not, you should bookmark this. You're going to want to reread this in a couple years. There are valid legislative actions that could put an end to all of this, but it will probably take everything getting fubared before antone is willing to logically look at the issue.
It's not on the router. It's on a network device such as Sandvine, TippingPoint, Ellacoya etc. And yes, there are encrypted P2P apps. And they still have a fingerprint easily indentified by those boxes.
As far as the OP goes, AT&T didn;t agree not to throttle P2P. They agreed to treat p2p the same. Throttle one, throttle them all. You're going to have to make a different argument for not getting your latest dvd of girls gone wild throttled.
They will be able to offer you your 6 megs of service, but at a much higher cost than you are currently paying. You're probably paying 40 bucks or so for 6 megs. That same 6 megs of traffic is costing your provider probably a hundred a month for the transit, if you used it 100% , 100% of the time. They are banking on you not using it. If everyone starts to use it, someone will have to pay for it. That will be you. It won't just be 1 ISP that raises rates, it will be all ISP's. Your new 6 meg down cost will be double or triple it's current cost. I am willing to pay the price for that service personally, but most folks aren't.
I have said for years that the Internet business model is broken. Eyeball and content providers are building out nationwide networks to carry their traffic but still pay someone like Level 3 for transit. Instead of legislation telling the ISP's to keep supporting a broken business model, they should pass legislation mandating networks interconnect. Forced peering I suppose would be a good word for it. Legislating a problem that doesn't exist may seem like a big deal, but my company has no intention of ever censoring or restricting/throttling someones traffic. Our biggest concern is who is going to pay for all of this traffic. How do we continue to offer you 6 megs of traffic at 40 bucks a month?
The whole point of the Internet was interconnecting networks, not everyone paying 1 company to carry their traffic to each other.
I hope I am wrong and none of the problems I see heading our way actually happen. Unfortunately, I don't think I am and I see a very troubled future in the US (worldwide even?) for networks. I think everything is going to have to break before it changes, and that is in noone's interest. Let's keep trying to pass legislation to cure a problem that doesn't exist and ignore the one that is staring us in the face.
I am more than willing to build out my network, but why should the content providers and myself keep paying a 3rd party when we can connect directly and remove those costs and increase quality at the same time? Oh, because some of the largest ISP's are also the transit providers and refuse to interconnect for free. (AT&T being the perfect example).
Note: Google is already peering so this does not really apply to them. The more content that comes from them directly and not my 3rd party transit provider, the less I spend on transit. This is one of reasons for their huge fiber network. Anyway, the less I spend on transit, the lower my per meg cost can be to you. I prefer not to raise your rates. I'd like to lower them. Without connections between the eyeballs and the content, this is not possible.
I'm saying it's not just as simple as "opening up full bandwidth on the pipe" as was stated by the previous poster. Their is cost associated with it and it someone has to pay it.
Net Neutrality legislation that is being proposed would prevent them from offering a QOS service to make sure your VOIp/IPTV apps have the bandwidth they need and not just best effort on a congested network. Some people are under the impression that there is a lot of free bandwidth out there, and that isn't the case.