Comments on: Verizon says Net neutrality is overhyped

CTO Mark Wegleitner says all his company wants to do is to be able to manage its network.

[LarryLo]

Looking out for their users.... HAHahahahaha!

"The issue is that consumers at times want to do more things than their bandwidth subscription allows them to do. So do we let all the applications and users suffer as a result of the one request that put them over the top?"

If I paid for 768 K I can do what ever I want with it. Verizon or ANY ISP has no business limiting, interfering or ?Best Efforting? my packets. Doesn?t matter if I am doing voice, video or data. Its not their business, their job is to make sure ALL my packets get to and from my home as fast as they can, that?s it.

Lets call this what it is, forced tiered services, I sincerely hope if they ever get their way and actually implement these service tiers to their home DSL subscribers, Yahoo, Microsoft and Google ALL redirect Verizon Customers to a page explaining that they don?t want ?all the applications and users to suffer? as result of an inferior network connection, so they are blocking the service at this time.

Maybe that might get the Telco?s attention?

Finally, What's up with CNET's coverage of the Net Neutrality debate, seems to me they have become a Mouth Piece for the Telcos?

[LarryLo]

Looking out for their users.... HAHahahahaha!

"The issue is that consumers at times want to do more things than their bandwidth subscription allows them to do. So do we let all the applications and users suffer as a result of the one request that put them over the top?"

If I paid for 768 K I can do what ever I want with it. Verizon or ANY ISP has no business limiting, interfering or ?Best Efforting? my packets. Doesn?t matter if I am doing voice, video or data. Its not their business, their job is to make sure ALL my packets get to and from my home as fast as they can, that?s it.

Lets call this what it is, forced tiered services, I sincerely hope if they ever get their way and actually implement these service tiers to their home DSL subscribers, Yahoo, Microsoft and Google ALL redirect Verizon Customers to a page explaining that they don?t want ?all the applications and users to suffer? as result of an inferior network connection, so they are blocking the service at this time.

Maybe that might get the Telco?s attention?

Finally, What's up with CNET's coverage of the Net Neutrality debate, seems to me they have become a Mouth Piece for the Telcos?

[directorblue]

For the love of... can't any reporter ask these three questions?

Cisco is pitching new and ominous hardware that can help filter, monitor, and control packet flow for carriers. Because of this, I have crafted three simple questions that the carriers should be required to answer before they are permitted to violate network neutrality. They are as follows:

1) Will you use deep packet inspection to analyze and/or meter customer behavior?

2) Will you offer tiered or restricted (e.g., "gold", "silver", and "bronze") Internet packages to customers otherwise operating at the same bandwidth?

3) Will you monitor and/or block voice-over-IP (VoIP), peer-to-peer file transfers, or any other class of communication by customers based upon tier or service plan?

I believe the carriers should be forced to answer these three questions honestly and directly.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/02/network-neutrality-three-simple.html

[directorblue]

For the love of... can't any reporter ask these three questions?

Cisco is pitching new and ominous hardware that can help filter, monitor, and control packet flow for carriers. Because of this, I have crafted three simple questions that the carriers should be required to answer before they are permitted to violate network neutrality. They are as follows:

1) Will you use deep packet inspection to analyze and/or meter customer behavior?

2) Will you offer tiered or restricted (e.g., "gold", "silver", and "bronze") Internet packages to customers otherwise operating at the same bandwidth?

3) Will you monitor and/or block voice-over-IP (VoIP), peer-to-peer file transfers, or any other class of communication by customers based upon tier or service plan?

I believe the carriers should be forced to answer these three questions honestly and directly.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/02/network-neutrality-three-simple.html

[CagedAnimal]

Telecoms do their own overhyping

It is really an issue of whether ISPs should be allowed to to block or throttle packets based on port, or source and destination IP addresses. That is what any Internet favoritism really comes down to. ISPs really like to have this ability, and Net Neutrality legislation would probabably take it away from them.

Sometimes these filters may be well intentioned (like slowing the spread of a virus or cutting down on spam), other times, they are not (blocking VoIP, preventing customers from running their own servers, or using other services). Whatever the purpose, it is should not be the role ISP to decide what a subscriber does with their Internet connection and the bandwidth they are paying for. It is a shame their strategy is they try to present such legislation as a stumbling block that would make new business models infeasible.

Most interpretations of Network Neutrality would not prevent them from selling dedicated pipes to content providers. It would not prevent them from accomodating occasional traffic spikes to low bandwidth subscribers and charging customers accordingly; they could even have a system where content providers could take financial responsibility for those spikes. In short, they could still charge the high bandwidth users more for their use of the network, and have pricing plans appropriate to different usage patterns. They just could not do it on such discriminary terms.

So besides having to provide customers with true Internet connectivity instead of just a subset of it, what are they complaining about?

[volterwd]

Bandwidth Crunch?

How is it korea can provide so much more to their citizens and yet the telco's are complaining that the users are overwhelming their archaic system?

[CagedAnimal]

Telecoms do their own overhyping

It is really an issue of whether ISPs should be allowed to to block or throttle packets based on port, or source and destination IP addresses. That is what any Internet favoritism really comes down to. ISPs really like to have this ability, and Net Neutrality legislation would probabably take it away from them.

Sometimes these filters may be well intentioned (like slowing the spread of a virus or cutting down on spam), other times, they are not (blocking VoIP, preventing customers from running their own servers, or using other services). Whatever the purpose, it is should not be the role ISP to decide what a subscriber does with their Internet connection and the bandwidth they are paying for. It is a shame their strategy is they try to present such legislation as a stumbling block that would make new business models infeasible.

Most interpretations of Network Neutrality would not prevent them from selling dedicated pipes to content providers. It would not prevent them from accomodating occasional traffic spikes to low bandwidth subscribers and charging customers accordingly; they could even have a system where content providers could take financial responsibility for those spikes. In short, they could still charge the high bandwidth users more for their use of the network, and have pricing plans appropriate to different usage patterns. They just could not do it on such discriminary terms.

So besides having to provide customers with true Internet connectivity instead of just a subset of it, what are they complaining about?

[volterwd]

Bandwidth Crunch?

How is it korea can provide so much more to their citizens and yet the telco's are complaining that the users are overwhelming their archaic system?

[Rod Adams]

Reasonable technical arguments

I thank CNET for taking the time to find someone from a
network service provider that can provide reasonably
understandable technical reasons for their desire to be able to
more actively manage their network.

It seems that the kinds of traffic controls mentioned are roughly
analogous to HOV lanes, special bus lanes, timed traffic lights,
cloverleaf on-ramps, and limited access highways that were
implemented to make better use of the nation's road network.

Though many of us fight road traffic congestion every day,
imagine just how much more painful it would be if the standards
of the 1940s were still in place. No one would ever get
anywhere.

The Wild West days of undifferentiated Internet traffic worked
okay in a short lived time where the capacity of the network was
much greater than the traffic demand. That time has begun to
rapidly disappear (and I am doing my share of adding to the
network load by subscribing to a large number of podcasts).

Delivering email is one challenge - delivering large audio and
even larger video files is a completely different challenge that
will require different management tools that will certainly cost
money and require a lot of intellectual capital to implement and
maintain.

We should never forget that the Internet Protocol (IP) allows us
to SHARE a common network and still have our files and
messages reach their destination. Without better management
tools, that COMMON network will become less and less reliable
as traffic increases and the difference in size between large and
small files becomes even greater.

BTW - I have never worked at a network service provider and do
not own any stock in any companies that provide that service. I
do, however, own some stock in companies that will be
providing infrastructure components as the internet expands to
supply the new stresses on its capacity. I think some of those
infrastructure companies make excellent investment choices.

[LarryLo]

You are out of your mind?

I have worked at Service providers and I have run big networks. QoS is great for private networks, but it?s not so great for public ones. Your whole Traffic analogy is flawed in that when the government sets up all these special access features, their only interest is the timely flow of people in their cars or buses. They are not favoring one person in one car to get somewhere faster than the other because they paid an extra fee, they have no conflicting interests. The Telco's on the other hand have a clear conflict of interest, in that they will be providing a competing service and hence will want that service favored. Let?s be clear this is really only going to effect the lucrative Real Time Internet Services (Voice and Video). The Telco's are looking to monopolize these two services and or profit from the success of competitors through the levying of special access charges.

Folks if we allow the Telco?s or any ISPs to modify your internet experience just to meet their revenue goals, the US internet user is in for a very unhappy future.

[Rod Adams]

Reasonable technical arguments

I thank CNET for taking the time to find someone from a
network service provider that can provide reasonably
understandable technical reasons for their desire to be able to
more actively manage their network.

It seems that the kinds of traffic controls mentioned are roughly
analogous to HOV lanes, special bus lanes, timed traffic lights,
cloverleaf on-ramps, and limited access highways that were
implemented to make better use of the nation's road network.

Though many of us fight road traffic congestion every day,
imagine just how much more painful it would be if the standards
of the 1940s were still in place. No one would ever get
anywhere.

The Wild West days of undifferentiated Internet traffic worked
okay in a short lived time where the capacity of the network was
much greater than the traffic demand. That time has begun to
rapidly disappear (and I am doing my share of adding to the
network load by subscribing to a large number of podcasts).

Delivering email is one challenge - delivering large audio and
even larger video files is a completely different challenge that
will require different management tools that will certainly cost
money and require a lot of intellectual capital to implement and
maintain.

We should never forget that the Internet Protocol (IP) allows us
to SHARE a common network and still have our files and
messages reach their destination. Without better management
tools, that COMMON network will become less and less reliable
as traffic increases and the difference in size between large and
small files becomes even greater.

BTW - I have never worked at a network service provider and do
not own any stock in any companies that provide that service. I
do, however, own some stock in companies that will be
providing infrastructure components as the internet expands to
supply the new stresses on its capacity. I think some of those
infrastructure companies make excellent investment choices.

[LarryLo]

You are out of your mind?

I have worked at Service providers and I have run big networks. QoS is great for private networks, but it?s not so great for public ones. Your whole Traffic analogy is flawed in that when the government sets up all these special access features, their only interest is the timely flow of people in their cars or buses. They are not favoring one person in one car to get somewhere faster than the other because they paid an extra fee, they have no conflicting interests. The Telco's on the other hand have a clear conflict of interest, in that they will be providing a competing service and hence will want that service favored. Let?s be clear this is really only going to effect the lucrative Real Time Internet Services (Voice and Video). The Telco's are looking to monopolize these two services and or profit from the success of competitors through the levying of special access charges.

Folks if we allow the Telco?s or any ISPs to modify your internet experience just to meet their revenue goals, the US internet user is in for a very unhappy future.