http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/ Engadget Comments for Net neutrality and the FCC: what's being done to preserve it http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/
The fundamental question is; Who owns the internet? Meaning , who owns the fiber, coax, servers? The answer to this suggests the answer to the question - an owner of a piece of private property should be allowed to do whatever he or she wants with it. Cases where previous government-mediated monopolies hinder the fundamental fairness of this should be investigated and corrected, but the servers, switches, and the "pipes", as Senator Stevens so ineptly (but not inaptly) put it, belong to the owners, not the government, and not to Google.]]>Mar 29th 2007 2:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/
Hmm... Vend-A-Shill: Will argue against American freedom and for abusive corporations. Please insert coin.

Oh, that explains everything!

Seriously though, it was the government that built the internet infrastructure... they only loaned it to cable companies and telcos on the condition that it be improved with fiberoptic networks. That never happened. And when other people try to build those fiberoptic networks, Comcast and its cronies have the gall to sue for unfair competition (as if there was anything resembling competition in the cable industry).

So yeah, the usual "free-market solves EVERYTHING!" drivel spouted off by most Republicans just doesn't fly in this case. America is a country of freedom, and that freedom belongs to more than just billionaire media monopolists.

If common carrier laws need to be passed to preserve that freedom, so be it. AT+T has plenty of money as it is... it can find other ways to make more money than by imprisoning free expression and turning the internet into a desolate wasteland of bland, processed content.

JR]]>Mar 29th 2007 5:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/
Way to make two nasty, reflexive, ad hominem attacks on me in one post. Accusing me of carrying water for Big Telco / Big Cable and the Republicrat / Demoblican party really addresses the point (NOT), which is who owns the stuff is the internet made of.

But here you are, opposed to two industries (Big Telco and Big Cable) monopolizing the internet. The monopoly power they have been given comes from government regs (federal regs on telco for over 100 years, state and local regs on cable). Yet your solution, and that of every party in the "Net Neutrality" debate is to issue MORE regulations. How does this make any sense?

The only answer that will work in the long run is complete, utter deregulation and privatization of all telco and all internet. Let ISPs restrict access to non-favored content providers, and new competitors will spring up nearly overnight to bleed the offending ISPs to death. And your irrelevant blather about the government creating the internet aside, the first massive investments in fiber were made by companies such as MCI that were able to break loose of the hammerlock the Feds gave the Bell System, and this, not your precious bureaucracy, was the major development that led to the internet as we know it today.

Notice, I did NOT accuse you of being a shill for, say, Google or Yahoo, in the same way you accused me of shilling for ComCrap or Big Brother Bell.]]>Mar 30th 2007 10:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/
http://www.bloggingwv.com]]>Mar 30th 2007 12:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/
In my opinion (and this is just a lay opinion of a consumer and nothing more), the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act" seems to be quite right. The consumers should have their choice of service, and what type of service they want without additional goodies being attached on for a price, and they should face no trouble accessing content of any type on the internet; the companies should be allowed to set up their services as best as they can, meaning that if someone can afford to offer large bandwidth and quick loading time for their content, they should be allowed to do so. In that sense, 'equality' is harmful, because it stunts growth. Providers should be allowed to offer as much as they can, as long as they don't dictate whether or not consumers can access content offered by others (i.e. what Madison River did).

Simply put, let the consumers have whatever they want, at the price you see fit, as long as you offer as much as you can without trying to impede your competitors.

Sounds good, don't it?]]>Mar 29th 2007 2:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/
It is the "wide open frontier" right now, and like the interstate system that we have right now that helps us move large amounts of goods around the country, we need a good internet system to help us move large amounts of goods (content, services, etc.). Without the flow of goods, our economy may suffer. ]]>Mar 29th 2007 2:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/when I talk on the phone, using telecommunications companies' systems, my voice is digitized and sent as data over their systems; why can't they get it through their heads that ALL digital data (voice, music, movies, etc) should be able to be shuttled around on the networks with no more or less priority than other forms of communications are as of right now.


That's kind of the point of this, I thought. They (the companies, the legislators, etc.) do completely get that all digital data should be treated that way. They also get that they are required to do so by law with voice data but are not required (yet) for other data.

And when there's something not required to be on a level playing field, that's an opportunity to tweak and adjust and wring extra money out of things. And extra money is why "should" doesn't mean "will". They only *will* do it when they *have* to do it.
]]>Mar 30th 2007 12:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/
I am all for having a net neutrality passes even though it currently isn't that big of an issue. In my opinion it would be much better to stop this kind of activity from starting now so that we don't have to fight to get it removed later.]]>Mar 29th 2007 3:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/One way to do that is to keep checks on FCC officials who start turning into puppets.

I worry about this part though (it's towards the end of the article):
(A) "reasonable and nondiscriminatory"

Does that mean different content can be blocked if certain people (like the ISPs etc) see it as discriminatory? For example, they could either block Jimmy Carter websites because of anti-Jewish allegations, or they could block Michael Savage-like cites because of anti-Muslim allegations, or block Humanist sites because they seem anti-religion.
OR
Does it mean that sites that offer service on a discriminatory basis would be blocked (like free membership for anyone who's of a certain category, etc)?]]>Mar 29th 2007 3:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/"reasonable and non-discriminatory" means they have to offer the same terms (more or less) to any customers - they can't charge Google one price and Yahoo a significantly different one. It has nothing to do with blocking content.]]>Mar 29th 2007 4:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/(A) "reasonable and nondiscriminatory"

----

You read this wrong. It says that the content must be provided in a manner that is "reasonable and nondiscriminatory", not that the content itself must be that.]]>Mar 29th 2007 5:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/"In my opinion it would be much better to stop this kind of activity from starting now so that we don't have to fight to get it removed later."
^^^^ What kind of activity are u referring to?

To Michael: "It is the "wide open frontier" right now, and like the interstate system that we have right now that helps us move large amounts of goods around the country, we need a good internet system to help us move large amounts of goods (content, services, etc.). Without the flow of goods, our economy may suffer.
^^^^ I agree.

Also, what about issues like air neutrality (radio etc)?

Internet censorship will be the death of free speech...
Controlled internet in the US could eventually mean even more political polarization because of subtly one-sided information (whatever suits the agendas of the different ISPs)]]>Mar 29th 2007 3:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/Mar 30th 2007 9:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/

I think blocking ports to prevent people from using their connection any way they please is borderline. However, well intentioned moves (like trying to decrease/block spam) should be lauded.


]]>Mar 29th 2007 3:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/
For example you buy a device with service that is connected to a 3G network but the device lacks software which is capable of accessing all of the internet's content.

Would all broadband devices have to include fully capable web browsers?]]>Mar 29th 2007 4:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/
If the attackers of 'net neutrality aren't honest, what does that tell you?

Craig]]>Mar 29th 2007 4:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/AT+T has plenty of money as it is

Always an excellent argument. A nice slick slope that leads you right towards socialism. Cheers!]]>Mar 29th 2007 6:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/
JR]]>Mar 29th 2007 7:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/
Neutrality is letting consumers decide, not lawyers and bureaucrats. As long as there is competition, which we're only getting more of (Dial-Up, Cable, DSL, Satellite, 3G, Muni Wi-fi, Paid Wi-fi, WiMax, Power-line, Corporate, university, library, yada, yada), consumers will have the freedom to switch providers for the best service for their dollar.

Competition is the answer; not regulation. ]]>Mar 29th 2007 7:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/
The problem with the free marketeers is that competition is the last thing on their minds. They support mergers, which reduce customer choice and raise prices. They support monopolies like those the cable companies currently possess. Worst of all, they support deregulation, which further limits competition and puts the customer behind the eight ball.

You can't put blind trust in Laissez-faire capitalism, because it simply doesn't work. Left unchecked, corporations will find a way to abuse their considerable power. Do you think DuPont would have stopped producing ozone-depleting hydroflourocarbons, or the Rockefellers would have stopped abusing their railroad monopoly, or AT+T would have split themselves up in the early 1980's, if the government had just asked them nicely?

The answer is no. The government sometimes needs to step in to protect Americans from corporate greed... and this is one of those times. Net neutrality does far less damage to corporations than its absence would do to the citizens of the United States.

JR]]>Mar 29th 2007 8:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/
]]>Mar 29th 2007 7:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/
"Do you think DuPont would have stopped producing ozone-depleting hydroflourocarbons"

Uh, DuPont gamed the system so the ban occurred after their CFC patents expired, so that consumers would have to use THEIR PATENTED non-CFC refrigerants - yeah, the Feds really screwed DuPont there, HAHAHAHA.

"...or the Rockefellers would have stopped abusing their railroad monopoly,"

Um, the Rockefellers owned Standard Oil, and that was the "monopoly" they were accused of having. The railroads are a different, government-mediated monopoly.

"or AT+T would have split themselves up in the early 1980's, if the government had just asked them nicely?"

Uh, the government GAVE them their monopoly, and protected it for nearly 100 years, what planet have YOU been living on? And I made the point earlier that MCI and its customers (big businesses that were fed up with poor treatment and poor service by Bell Tel) and forced the government's hand on the breakup.

Your critique of laissez faire stinks on ice, and you really should abandon your feeble attempt at economic argument.]]>Mar 30th 2007 10:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/
Problem is that consumers are getting used to being dictated to by
the major corporations. As long as the government sides with/feels that corporate rights outweigh individual/consumer rights these threats to freedom of information will continue. That's what net neutrality boils down to for myself.

Where are Apple, Microsoft, Dell, HP and a host of other companies on this issue - this will affect them as much as the Telecomm companies. (I'm in southern new jersey and i think it sucks that for broadband all i have is either Comcast or nothing. Verizon is too cheap or whatever to make their digital links (DSL or FiOS) available to my area. It's not for a lack of customers either) (sorry for the rant there - lol) ]]>Apr 2nd 2007 3:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/Mar 30th 2007 1:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/The whole "Network Neutrality" issue is the most ridiculous example of classic "Chicken Little" thinking that I have seen in a long time.

Here's a test, when you are listening to someone advocate in favor of "Network Neutrality": Ask the person doing the advocating to explain to you the difference between the Internet and the World Wide Web.

If you get a blank look that indicates that they never even considered that there WAS a difference, let alone what that difference is; then you can stop listening right then; because that person doesn't have the technical knowledge to HAVE the discussion.]]>Apr 1st 2007 8:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/
Now if this was a truly competitive sphere, I'd be less worried, but it just isn't, the only thing that has prevented the Internet from becoming the Bell monopoly of old is Net Neutrality, even now there are instances where Net Neutrality is ignored and the incident must be investigated, what would happen if it was watered down and neutered?

The thing that makes me boil most is it's becoming a partisan issue, Republicans have no reason to side so willingly against it, they, much like everyone else who uses the internet, should side with the idea of Net Neutrality. I guess it just lends more to the idea of politicians being corrupt, and money changing hands.

I have personally spoken to all but one of my Michigan representatives on this issue, that one refused to even speak to me(Ironically he appeared on The Colbert Report), you should all do the same in your respective states and insure the people representing you know about the issue at hand.]]>Mar 30th 2007 7:13AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/
Let's use the test on you.


You say you sypport Network Neutrality. OK...
What's the difference between the Internet and the World Wide Web?]]>Apr 1st 2007 8:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/
The World Wide Web, that's HTML and web pages, you know, stuff you see in IE/Firefox, and the Internet is actual physical networks linked together through the world, which provides the connection to use the World Wide Web. I'd bet not many representatives know the difference though, I should have made that a point, they are old.]]>Mar 30th 2007 11:51AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/This has nothing to do with politics, and attempting to gain support for ANY position by saying; "Look! That is against this idea, so it MUST be a good idea!" is just plain dishonest and ignorant.]]>Mar 30th 2007 7:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/
Yes, that's close enough for the purpose of coversation. The WWW is content and the Internet is Infrastructure.

Now, are you familiar with BGP4?
Failing that, do you have any familiarity with how the internet is constructed physically or how packets are routed?

Just so you understand, I'm not asking you these questions to amuse myself. I am trying to open a dialog, but I need to understand where you are in terms of technical knowledge. Otherwise I could easily spew a bunch of techno-babble that wouldn't remotely make sense to you.]]>Mar 30th 2007 1:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/
So no, I didn't really know any of what I read, and I can't say I know a whole lot more now.]]>Mar 30th 2007 1:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/
Essentially, I have made the claim that anyone who actually understands the way the internet works would know that "Network Neutrality" is a useless idea designed to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

The only way to substantiate that claim is to explain to you how The Internet functions, such that you can see for yourself how laughable the whole thing is.


I've decided that I want to try to do this in "chunks", instead of writing something to rival 'War & Peace', then expecting you to actually read through that nonsense without falling asleep.


Now...
Yesterday, I asked you what you knew about BGP4. The reason I asked that is because Border Gateway Protocol version #4 is what is currently used as the Routing Protocol for the internet.

A few decades ago when DARPA conceived what would actually become what we call "The Internet", they were trying to create a robust, self-healing communications network; that would be able to both function and to a certain extent repair itself; all without human intervention.

To understand how this works, it's best to begin with a simple ethernet network.

You have, say... Four computers; and they are all plugged into a Hub. Computer #1 wants to send information to computer #3. Unfortunately, #2 wants to talk to #4 at the same time.

#1 & #2 both send their packets out onto the media (The Cable) and the packets collide.
(These are not actually packets... Packets are a Layer-3 property, but the term will do for this conversation.)

So, what do you do about the collision? Well... you could try to detect collisions, then have your computer back of for a fraction of a second before retransmitting. Then of course, you hope that the other guy backed off for a different amount of time so you can get your message through. You could also try to avoid collisions by sort of, well... honking your horn. You send a tiny bit of data out to let everyone else know you are about to send a bunch more. You might still have a collision, but at least there wont be as much data involved.

This is still not a great setup, so you get yourself a SWITCH, instead of a HUB.

If you have a Hub with 8 ports and you send a transmission INTO the Hub, it comes back out again on all 7 other ports.

If you have a Switch, the switch maintains a table of what are called MAC addresses (I'll explain in a moment) and it knows which computer is attached to which port. So, same scenario as before; but now the data leaves the Switch on only ONE port... the RIGHT one.

MAC addresses are also known as Hardware address. EVERY single network capable device built has a unique MAC address. In small networks, you don't even need IP addresses... you could actually do all your switching with just MAC addresses. Unfortuately, it doesn't scale well. That's why we us IP addresses. (Like 192.168.0.5, which is actually a "private" IP address... a whole 'nother subject.)

Anyway, switches work fine as long as you're in control of the entire network. An Individual Network, under the administrative control of one person or organization is called an "Autonomous System" or; "AS".

In my network, I have something like 4,000 some-odd switches (Mostly cisco 2900 series) and I don't know.... maybe 30,000 hosts? All this spread over around 150+ sites across a Metropolitan area. Which we do have route processors in a Cisco 8510 at each site (To cope with the fiber optic gig links that attach us to our ISPs), our network is actuall "Switched".

I'll break there to make sure you're still with me and to let you ask questions if you have any.


BTW, if at any time you decide you really don't care, just tell me. I'm not going to force feed you this stuff. Or, if you want to take this discussi9on off of this board; let me know that as well.]]>Mar 31st 2007 6:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/Apr 2nd 2007 6:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/"As a Network Engineer I have to tell you..."

As a chief information officer and computer scientist, and somebody who's been on the 'net since the time when when most people didn't know what an e-mail was, I'm somewhat confused by your assertion that network engineering knowledge is required to debate the political, economic, and philosophical issues of network neutrality.

Is your position going to be that a non-neutral network is a technical impossibility? If so, then, instead of arrogantly claiming that other people aren't qualified enough to discuss the topic, why don't you just get straight to the point and consider your knowledge to be something you use to educate people, instead of something to subdue them with? Somebody might need knowledge of BGP to decide whether you were right or wrong, but I'm certain they could understand your conclusions without that knowledge.

The fact of the matter is, high level people at telcos have stated they want to end net neutrality:
"William L. Smith, chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc."

Put up or shut up. Explain how knowledge of the technical mechanisms that would be used by telcos or other ISPs actually matters. Feel free to explain in as much technical detail as you wish. Understand, though, that I have worked on router designs that, I believe, would be quite useful for a discriminatory Internet.

]]>Mar 30th 2007 7:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/So you would assert that you can rationally discuss the socio-political implications of something that you don't actually understand in the first place?
Interesting.



Note to Rev:
It's Saturday morning as I write this and I have to be someplace shortly. I wanted to take some time to write you a GOOD response, and not "half-@$$" it; so I'll get back to you this afternoon when I return.]]>Mar 31st 2007 8:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/Mar 31st 2007 8:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/"So you would assert that you can rationally discuss the socio-political implications of something that you don't actually understand in the first place?
Interesting."

How much do you know about optical lithography? What about electromagnetism? Can you calculate the impedance of a transmission line? Ever written a kernel? Do you know how an MMU works? What about optics? Cryptography? Do you know how RSA actually works? Would you understand if I showed you a phase diagram for a lead-free solder? What about tin whiskers? Do you know enough metallurgy to analyze tin whisker problems in the systems you design? Do you know how a transistor works at the electron level? Do you know what N and P type doped semiconductors actually are?

All of those things are technical details of the systems you work on, and I'm guessing that you only truly understand a small percentage - because, honestly, you don't need to worry about the lithography used or the semantics of the semaphores used for IPC. You shouldn't have to worry about that.

The point I am making is that the underlying technical knowledge used to make the systems you use is something that you've only barely scratched the surface of. This article is a discussion of the legal, political, sociological and business implications of a certain traffic shaping policy. The business development people at an ISP will direct the people under them to implement a policy giving preferential treatment to traffic to people who pay them more. The technological means to accomplish this end are irrelevant.

I don't need to understand your router configuration to have an understanding of how an end-user will perceive the performance difference. More importantly, a deep understanding of BGP4 is utterly useless in understanding the impact of this on the competitive market.

I'm not saying that you can rationally discuss something you don't understand. I'm saying that BGP4 is not what we're talking about here, so an understanding of it is irrelevant.

Since turnabout is fair play...

The guy whose office is next to mine has testified before Congress on FCC licensing issues. I've been involved in FCC testing. I've helped plan licensing strategy. My company has lobbied Congress to auction the spectrum we bought instead of merely giving it away to one competitor. My book shelf has about 6 linear feet of legal documents, FCC rulings, and similar documents. I think you'll find that my knowledge of the _actual_ topic at hand is far greater than yours.

Do you have any marketing experience? Sociology? Econometrics? Business? Those are the fields relevant to net neutrality.

Net neutrality is not a technical issue.

I eagerly await an explanation of why I need to understand routing technology before I can speak rationally on 'net neutrality.

]]>Mar 31st 2007 12:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/
"I eagerly await an
explanation of why I
need to understand
routing technology
before I can speak
rationally on
'net neutrality."

No, you don't. What you eagerly await is another opportunity to beat your chest & yell.


"This article is a discussion of the legal, political, sociological and business implications of a certain traffic shaping policy."

You apparently feel that you are capable of having a rational and intelligent discussion on the **...legal, political, sociological and business implications of a certain traffic shaping policy...**
without actually understanding how the "Traffic Shaping" that you mentioned works in the first place.

It is precisely because of people who are eager to pontificate upon things that they don't understand that we end up with silliness like this 'Network Neutrality" issue in the first place.

The very fact that you seem to be genuinely offended by the notion that someone might actually expect you to KNOW something about a subject before you hold forth on it is prima facie evidence that your arguments are based on emotion, not facts.

Now if you'll excuse me, I promised someone else that I would get back to them. Trying to translate complex technical issues into laymans terms is difficult and time consuming; so I don't wish to waste any further time arguing with an angry man who appears to believe that actual knowledge is irrelevant.

You may of course feel free to continue yelling at me.]]>Mar 31st 2007 5:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/"...waste any further time arguing with an angry man who appears to believe that actual knowledge is irrelevant."

Strawman. I explained why _your_ knowledge was irrelevant, and which knowledge I believed _was_ relevant.

"You apparently feel that you are capable of having a rational and intelligent discussion on the **...legal, political, sociological and business implications of a certain traffic shaping policy...**
without actually understanding how the "Traffic Shaping" that you mentioned works in the first place."

To correct that statement slightly, I think that it's possible to have a rational and intelligent discussion on the topic without knowing how to implement the policy, yes.

Perhaps you're assuming for some reason that I don't understand routing and traffic shaping. I've worked on designing actual, real routers in the past. The device in question could do quite deep packet analysis and traffic shaping with a throughput of 80Gbps.

"The very fact that you seem to be genuinely offended by the notion that someone might actually expect you to KNOW something about a subject before you hold forth on it is prima facie evidence that your arguments are based on emotion, not facts."

I am offended when somebody asserts that, if I don't possess the knowledge _they_ believe to be relevant, I must be an idiot. You have yet to provide even the slightest reason why the _implementation_details_ of a routing policy are relevant to an understanding of its impact in the marketplace.

You also seem to casually ignore the detailed, topic-specific knowledge that I said I had. In terms of congress, FCC, lobbying, and other regulatory issues, I am quite experienced. But you apparently feel that only _your_ knowledge is relevant.

I do wish you the best of luck in explaining traffic shaping in layman's terms. I've done it before, but I really find it a lot easier interactively and with a white board.

"You may of course feel free to continue yelling at me."

And you may, of course, feel free to continue complaining about the tone of my argument and mis-representing the content of it. If you have an argument against enforced 'net neutrality that is not based on Libertarian principles of zero government influence in the private sector, I would genuinely like to hear it. I haven't heard one yet.
]]>Mar 31st 2007 6:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/"Essentially, I have made the claim that anyone who actually understands the way the internet works would know that "Network Neutrality" is a useless idea designed to fix a problem that doesn't exist."

One, or both, of us seem to be very confused here. I'd like to understand your claim, so I would appreciate it if you could humor me.

It is generally accepted that network neutrality is the status quo. The discussion is about enforcing the status quo, and preventing the telcos from doing what they've said they want to do - provide higher QoS to content providers who pay them money.

Obviously, the problem that forced network neutrality is supposed to solve doesn't exist right now...

Are you claiming:
1. The telcos' proposition of higher QoS to paying content providers is not going to actually work in some sense - either technically infeasible, or consumers won't notice or care?

2. The current Internet topology is such that we don't have network neutrality on the 'net now?

3. The proposals for network neutrality are technically broken and won't do what their advocates want them to do?

...or something else entirely?

]]>Mar 31st 2007 11:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/
]]>Apr 1st 2007 8:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/
That's because I haven't gotten there yet.

I wanted to stop to make sure you were still with me on the technical mumbo-jumbo. ]]>Apr 2nd 2007 4:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/
Just as an example:

"...as I understand it the goal of Net Neutrality is really to keep the corporations(Access providers) out of the process, and make sure they stay just access providers...."

That statement, although seemingly logical; is completely meaningless.
Actually, I have to correct myself...
It's WORSE than meaningless; because it's so flawed that it's actually misleading.

As I said, if you still want to know what I'm talking about, I can give you Part Two. I just don't see any use in so overloading you with information in any one post that you tune out and don't actually get any UNDERSTANDING out of it.

It's up to you...

]]>Apr 2nd 2007 4:21PM