GameSlurp




Go Back   GameSlurp > Off Topic


Log-in/register to unlock all the member quick-links and features!
Reply
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >


JCAA's Avatar
JCAA
PS3 Club Mentor
JCAA is Male   JCAA is offline
 
I own a Nintendo WiiI own a Sony PSPI own a Gamecube
Join Date: Feb 2007
Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 612

 
07-06-2007, 07:42 AM
#1

Net neutrality

I am not sure if this is a big deal for you guys in the UK but here in the U.S. it can have dire consequences. This can for example directly effect your speed for PSN or XBL if Sony or Microsoft have not "paid up" money to your IP provider.
If you pay for 8MB DL speed you should get that no matter what site you are visiting!

savetheinternet

If this is too political to post feel free to close the thread.


     
Azz's Avatar
Azz
Admin
Azz is Male   Azz is offline
 
I own a Nintendo WiiI own a Sony PSP
Join Date: Jan 2007
South Wales, UK
Posts: 14,301

 
07-06-2007, 10:22 AM
#2

Re: Net neutrality

Agree 100%!

They have no reason to do it but greed and want of power/control

PS I try to sign the petition but it wouldn't let me as I'm not based in the US.


     
JCAA's Avatar
JCAA
PS3 Club Mentor
JCAA is Male   JCAA is offline
 
I own a Nintendo WiiI own a Sony PSPI own a Gamecube
Join Date: Feb 2007
Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 612

 
07-06-2007, 02:54 PM
#3

Re: Net neutrality

Thanks for trying to sign it Azz! I had my wife and friend sign it as well


     
Tom's Avatar
Tom
PS3 Club Mod
Tom is Male   Tom is offline
 
I own a Nintendo WiiI own a Sony PSPI own a Gamecube
Join Date: Jan 2007
Leeds, UK
Posts: 2,595

 
07-06-2007, 05:04 PM
#4

Re: Net neutrality

Many people in the UK think that it won't affect us - wrong! Any servers based in the US will be affected, and no doubt after its done in the US they'll want to deploy it here too.

This can't be allowed, need to stop this at all costs.


     
Crawford's Avatar
Crawford
PC Club Mentor
Crawford is Male   Crawford is offline
 
I own a Nintendo WiiI own a Sony PSPI own a PC
Join Date: Feb 2007
Seattle, WA, United States
Posts: 1,189

 
07-06-2007, 11:08 PM
#5

Re: Net neutrality

Signed. This is complete BS for people, the internet can't be controlled like that.


     
stuiebluie's Avatar
stuiebluie
Forum Editor
stuiebluie is Male   stuiebluie is offline
 
I own a Nintendo WiiI own a Sony PSPI own a Gamecube
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bedfordshire, UK
Posts: 6,295

 
09-06-2007, 01:14 AM
#6

Re: Net neutrality

Wow, thats bad, didn't know it was happening! Thanks for the info JCAA


     
Kazriko's Avatar
Kazriko
Senior Member
Kazriko is Male   Kazriko is offline
 
I own a Playstation 3. My Playstation Network ID is: KazrikoI own a Nintendo WiiI own a Sony PSPI own a DSI own a Sony Playstation 2I own a Xbox. My Xbox Live ID is: KazrikoI own a Gamecube
Join Date: Feb 2007
Western US
Posts: 4,494

 
09-06-2007, 10:26 PM
#7

Re: Net neutrality

I'm not 100% sure this is exactly what people are claiming it is. I will say that legislation enforcing complete neutrality is a good, solid way to halt the growth of internet bandwidth. What we really need is Content-neutrality.

That is, we need to make sure that whatever the content is, if a user requests it, then it will be made available to them at the speed that they have paid for. The other problem is that the broadband providers do not currently give a guarantee of bandwidth availability to their customers. They give a Maximum speed that you are permitted, but they don't allow you to purchase a minimum guaranteed speed for your line. The ideal situation if unshackled from bandwidth-neutrality is that users would have a maximum and minimum bandwidth, and content from any point on the network would be guaranteed that minimum bandwidth that they paid for (provided the other side also has enough bandwidth to meet these needs.) Content providers would also be able to purchase extra bandwidth priorities with internet providers so long as the internet provider has sufficient bandwidth to meet both that purchased space AND the minimums that all of their customers have paid for. This would actually end up INCREASING bandwidth available for the general internet, because when the purchased bandwidth is not used, it can be used as well for general internet traffic. The key though is the Minimum guarantees to customers for whatever content they want, and the requirement that the providers follow through on their guarantees to all parties.

If content providers want to pay to improve our broadband connections, and as long as we can guarantee a decent amount of bandwidth for the rest of the internet, it's madness to say that we want to legislate it so it is impossible for any third party to subsidize improvements to our home lines.


     
JCAA's Avatar
JCAA
PS3 Club Mentor
JCAA is Male   JCAA is offline
 
I own a Nintendo WiiI own a Sony PSPI own a Gamecube
Join Date: Feb 2007
Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 612

 
10-06-2007, 04:04 AM
#8

Re: Net neutrality

Kaz I humble disagree with you in this regard. I think net neutrality is something that needs to be protected at all cost! If I pay to connect to the net with a given quality of service, and you pay to connect to the net with the same or higher quality of service, it is not up to a corporation to decide what services on the net that I can access and how fast I can access that. It is important that not only companies with big pocket books can compete on the internet. If this pass the next google and Ebay might never see the day. That is one reason Google and Ebay are both strong supporters of Net neutrality even if they know that they could afford to pay it themselves. It is corporate greed from telcos and cable companies at its best and stifles competition.


     
Kazriko's Avatar
Kazriko
Senior Member
Kazriko is Male   Kazriko is offline
 
I own a Playstation 3. My Playstation Network ID is: KazrikoI own a Nintendo WiiI own a Sony PSPI own a DSI own a Sony Playstation 2I own a Xbox. My Xbox Live ID is: KazrikoI own a Gamecube
Join Date: Feb 2007
Western US
Posts: 4,494

 
10-06-2007, 07:34 AM
#9

Re: Net neutrality

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCAA View Post
Kaz I humble disagree with you in this regard. I think net neutrality is something that needs to be protected at all cost!
People aren't doing a very good job of specifying this, and are calling it Net Neutrality when that's a wholely ambiguous term. Do you mean you want to not filter based on content, do you mean you want to make sure everything goes the same slow speed no matter what? Really, Bandwidth Neutrality and Content Neutrality are the two issues, and are separate. Most people try to whip up support for Bandwidth neutrality by appealing to Content neutrality issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCAA View Post
If I pay to connect to the net with a given quality of service, and you pay to connect to the net with the same or higher quality of service, it is not up to a corporation to decide what services on the net that I can access and how fast I can access that.
Right now when you pay for internet, you are not given any guarantee of any quality of service at all. All packets are routed by Best Effort routing. There are absolutely no guarantees right now. Your packets may or may not get there when you toss them out on the net. The internet provider doesn't guarantee any amount of minimum bandwidth, only specify a maximum amount you can utilize with the amount you pay.

That is the main thing that needs to change. The internet providers need to give you a guaranteed minimum amount of bandwidth. The problem arises when packets are given preferential treatment when there is no guarantee for each subscriber's needs and that they get the amount of service they have paid for.

The thing that a network that isn't entirely bandwidth neutral allows you to actually implement quality of service. The customer should be able to purchase a package of bandwidth guarantees, and get all of the bandwidth that they pay for. A company could get bandwidth guarantees with QoS and not have it conflict with that which the customer has paid for.

With Best Effort routing like the internet has now, there's no guarantees at all, really. This can be suboptimal for some applications. The first two applications that were designed for the internet had two characteristics. One type were those that required speed and were tolerant of lost packets, the other did not require speed but required all packets to arrive. The internet only natively supports the first, but they tossed a layer called "TCP" on top of that one to do error correcting by numbering all packets and re-requesting lost ones. This adds huge latency to the connection, but allows you to guarantee that all packets will be presented to the end user software in order without losing any.

Applications that are not very tolerant of packet loss and are not tolerant of latency like VoIP, live TV, etc need something more than these two, along with applications we haven't even thought of because of the limitations of IPv4's routing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCAA View Post
It is important that not only companies with big pocket books can compete on the internet. If this pass the next google and Ebay might never see the day. That is one reason Google and Ebay are both strong supporters of Net neutrality even if they know that they could afford to pay it themselves. It is corporate greed from telcos and cable companies at its best and stifles competition.
People who don't pay will not be shut out. Any internet company that does this would go out of business fast as long as there is alternatives. This is content neutrality which MUST be maintained. The only places I know of that don't have Content neutrality are places like Iran and China. What the companies are paying for is the upgrades to the lines to permit speeds that are higher than what the customer paid for.

The key to this all though is making sure that they are required to give a minimum bandwidth guarantee and advertise it as prominently as they currently show the maximum bandwidth values.

Link overload section.

How 'saving the net' may kill it
one of the founders of the internet warns against network neutrality legislation and hysteria.
I ran into this document that encapsulates the argument, even if it's a little one sided.
makes the point that the net is very poorly designed for the modern user-centric content, and that the telcos are being less than honest with their capacity by stating the maximums but not giving guaranteed minimums.
Even parts of google are pointing out how the current structure of the internet isn't best for the future.

As I've stated before, If the telcos aren't allowed to take new pipes subsidized by the companies that sell products over them and guarantee those companies the line quality they need, then the telcos will do one of two things. They will either just not upgrade anything and we'll be stuck in the stone ages forever, or they will start building customer specific WANs that does not route over the internet, but instead connects to each ISP. They would then be able to sell their services at best speed, and we would lose the benefit of that network's bandwidth when it isn't being utilized by the customer.

Personally, I believe that Google supports net neutrality because they already have such a WAN in place, by purchasing up dark fiber all over the country. If net neutrality goes through, then google is in prime position to deliver their content at blazing speeds while everyone else is stifled by the under-funded, over-regulated backbone of the internet.


     
Astraeus's Avatar
Astraeus
Senior Member
Astraeus is Male   Astraeus is offline
 
I own a Nintendo WiiI own a Sony PSPI own a Gamecube
Join Date: Mar 2007
Harrogate UK
Posts: 1,107

 
28-06-2007, 01:38 AM
#10

Re: Net neutrality

Quote:
I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?

Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially...

They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.

It's a series of tubes.

And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
This message was brought to you by Senator Ted Stevens.


Say no to Net Neutrality. Vote for Ted.


     
Reply
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >

Top

© Copyright 2008, Gameslurp   GameSlurp | Contact Us | Archive | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Top