Net Neutrality

[Buckrub]

I personally find it rather interesting, at the least, that an established Internet Chat site that boasts of many IT and Network geniuses and gurus, has not weighed in one dot or tittle on the Net Neutrality issue.

Just find it odd.

[BarryBobPosthole]

That's because anybody who really knows WTF about net neutrality knows its a non issue.

And please explain to me me what the tangible benefit or consequence to innermet dwellers like us that will be felt. Cause nobody's really splained that yet. All we''ve heard its bad. Or good.

BKB

[Buckrub]

I don't know. I'm trying to study it.

My comment is not about it........just that I find it odd that we haven't discussed it.

[quercus alba]

I have absolutely no idea what net neutrality is. Is it going to affect me?

[BarryBobPosthole]

Well, in the first place there's no real proof that there is actually any net neutrality to begin with. The net neutrality inthis instance refers to the transport of the data across the internet, not the providrs of access to the internet. Secondly, the providers of transport have aproblem as to what to do with an ever growing bandwidth demand and they''d like to sell priority transport (read:NOT a neutral network) to companies that are willing to pay for it. Lots folks, small and medium business people for instance, like the current setup where they supposedly get equal treat on internet transport as everybody else. The paradox is, the transport providers (again, not the access providers) are the ones wanting to eliminate net neutralitry and sell transport to the highest bidders. The government in this case is trying to protect the status quo, and of corse it dubious as to whether they can hit the ground with their hat.
So we're basically fucked.

BKB

[Thumper]

I have no frigging clue what you just said.

I guess I've been in a cave and have no idea what the "net neutrality" issue is ... never heard of it ... or if I did, it must'a gone in one ear and out the other.

[BarryBobPosthole]

There's two parts of the internet. There's access, which is the most recognizeable part because its provided by your Internet Service Providers, and there transport, which is provided by internet 'peer' companies. The peers operate data centers where ISPs can connect to the transort network. There were initially seven peer companies but its morphed into a much bigger network than ot used to be. The agreements between peers are called transit agreements and the internet was essentially founded on the premise that the peers wouldn't charge for transport and wouldn't prioritize traffic in any commercial way, thus providing 'net neutrality' for anyone and everyone who is connected to it. Its important for business traffic on the internet because those are the applications that rely on availability and consistent performance to succeed. Now enter content applications like streaming video. Companies like Netflix (which started this particular mess) use a shitload of the internet network bandwidth and the peer transit providers face a real traffic management issue to maintain performance. So, being the brilliant marketeers they are, Verizon, ATT, and other peers decided they would offer what are basically higher priority guarantees for users like Netflix that wants to pay more for access to the transit part of the network. They already have massive direct access ports to the network. (trav is involved in marketing access to the net to those folks by the way). With this, net neutrality goes out the window and many fear the internet will become useful only to those who have the financial moxie to pay for it. It sounds paranoid but the threat is real, especially if you are a smaller B2B type of user that depends on the internet.
So the FCC, aka the government, thinks it is protecting net neutrality and thus small and medium businesses that use the internet by telling the peers that they can't stratify their network users by willingness to pay more. The conundrum is that the internet has made it so far without government regulation.
My personal opinion is that the Net neutrality train has already left the station and that companies already prioritize traffic and they more or less have to in order to manage this mess of a network. I also think that left to their own devices, these same companies will pretty much obliterate the internet as we know it. But if there is a business demand for a 'net neutral' network, then somebody will build one. Logic almost always prevails.

So, you see, there's no good guys side in this argument. The internet HAS to change and government regulation is almost always harmful to an industry. Its pretty conceited of us to want to regulate the 'world wide web' when we're really just a part of it too.

Then there is the political side to it and assholes calling it Obamacare for the internet' really don't know what they're talking about.

BKB

[Captain]

I will start calling it Obammacare for the internet then for two reasons
I don't know one thing about it and you called those folks assholes, that sorta plays into my wheelhouse!!! 😈

[BarryBobPosthole]

Poop disturber. ^^^^^^^^^^

BKB

[Thumper]

Ok, I kinda-sorta grasp it now. I did hear a bit about it now that you mention it. I believe the discussion I had was with a buddy of mine who said our days of plans (like I have) of unlimited usage are about to go out the window. The conversation started when I mentioned I stay connected 24/7 and only shut down to reboot for updates, etc. I mentioned the early days of the internet when I was charged for every minute I was on-line and I'd turn my computer on, get my business done as quickly as possible, and shut it back down again. Heck, that was so far back, I was on Win95, the hottest ticket in town at the time.

At least I assume that was the impetus for what he was saying.

[Buckrub]

See? I knew someone smart could discuss it!!

I see both sides. I can't make up my mind. I hate government regulation, it never works out in the end, so that puts me FOR the Tier I guys that pipe the backbone transport, and their desire to create Fast Lanes at a higher cost..........and yet if they do, the next Larry Page and Sergey Brin are not going to be able to afford to design what they need or test it, much less actually sell it in competition to Comcast or, oddly enough, Google, etc. There'll be way fewer new Googles, cause all these guys will be able to afford are the slow lanes. And the new stuff is, IMHO, gonna take more bandwidth, more batteries, more, more, more.........not less.

I guess this is a case of the FCC mandating, or regulating, what should be..........and not necessarily what IS.

Long way from Arpanet..........I know that.

[BarryBobPosthole]

I think its time for a new network model. Satelite launches are down below a million bucks now. There was an old initiative by McCaw, Gates, and a third partner I can't remember now called Teledesic in the 90's that would place geosynchronous satelites in orbit that would serve as the backbone for the 'new internet' and make access to it ubiquitous. The deal didn't succeed because they had to get their launch costs below a million per satelite. Be interesting to see if that old idea resurfaces.

BKB

[Chicken Dinner]

I have to admit that I haven't really followed the issue very closely. However, this quote did get shared to my FB wall this morning:

"The internet has been balls-out awesome since Al Gore created it with help from his solar farm (ask Brian Williams, he was there). All that without the government fucking it up. 50 years from now, we'll be excited all about the new iPhone 7 with rotary dial."

In general, it pretty much sums up my admittedly uninformed opinion.

[Buckrub]

I think its time for a new network model. Satelite launches are down below a million bucks now. There was an old initiative by McCaw, Gates, and a third partner I can't remember now called Teledesic in the 90's that would place geosynchronous satelites in orbit that would serve as the backbone for the 'new internet' and make access to it ubiquitous. The deal didn't succeed because they had to get their launch costs below a million per satelite. Be interesting to see if that old idea resurfaces.

BKB

That wasn't the name was it? Dang. I read that and my brain said "BLANK" where I thought the name would come to me.........and nothing is there.

Probably yell it out in church here in a bit.

And no, it was NOT geosynchronous satellites that they proposed, it was LEO's. Geosynchronous needs NASA, at 22,500 miles. And space shuttles, and such. Trouble with LEO (500 miles or so) is that the orbit decays, and new ones have to be constantly launched. And the old ones fall down. On folks' heads. And if I'm remembering right, it wasn't for Internet.........but for 'floating' cell towers......

But then..........I'm senile, so......I may be wrong.

[BarryBobPosthole]

I think the same satelite constellation idea has been looked at for a bunch of stuff. Last company I heard that was looking at it was Google and that was a year or two ago.

On the net neutrality thing, I guess the thing that pisses me off the most is there's really no 'right answer' but the usual buttholes claiming its curtains for the internet if they don't getvtheir way. Its curtains either way for the current way of doing business IMO. Doing nothing almost certainly means the internet will be divided between the haves and have nots.
The problem is, doing something will probably hose it up too.
BKB

[LJ3]

Well lookie here, Statler & Waldorf come out of retirement!

4407