What is Digg?166 Comments
- Avian00, on 08/21/2008, -3/+81I can accept that proper network engineering might require traffic management. However, in my opinion, the argument starts to break down the minute he says it would be "prohibitively expensive" to build a network that could handle the traffic requires of a protocol-agnostic network. How can a company that charges such high margins for their products ($0.25 for outgoing and $0.20 for incoming SMS messages?) claim they are short on the necessary cash? Sounds like a couple execs need to consider giving up one of their private jets or buying one less mansion this year.
- ELCad, on 08/22/2008, -0/+66Does that mean I can delay payment, without penalty fees. I need to manage my money traffic.
- timzen81, on 08/21/2008, -8/+69If Verizon does carry through with the transparency then I see no problem. I mean no matter what they have to manage traffic (if they did nothing no packet would get anywhere), and in optimizing the whole of the network some traffic will be delayed. If they are transparent about how they manage then we as users can be confident that they are working towards our benefit.
Of course they are still a company so best to be on our toes ;-) - Thoku, on 08/21/2008, -4/+59Wouldn't it just be nice to pay for a 20Mb connection and get all of it all the time, no matter what sort of data you are sending? If there network is over stretched, that is their problem not mine! Surely they have some responsibility to provide users with what they pay for.
- jakereilly, on 08/22/2008, -2/+42American internet is years behind the rest of the world because of ***** like this. (horrible government helps too)
- KnightMareInc, on 08/22/2008, -3/+35I still not convinced that P2P traffic is a huge deal and isnt just a red harring to allow these ISPs to break away from NN.
- jakereilly, on 08/22/2008, -3/+23Um, no, that analogy doesn't work. At all. An equal analogy would be the grocery store slowing down your vegetables down the conveyor belt because you bought a a lot of stuff, even thought the store promised not to. Do you even know what an analogy is?
If I pay for a certain speed, I should get that speed. They guarantee that speed, it should be provided.
Verizon/Comcast/Other telco have monopolies so they know they can get away with this *****. They don't "need" to do this. They "want" to so they get have more monies. - mfc5200, on 08/22/2008, -2/+21I agree. If they advertise 20mb, then I expect 20mb at all times.
It's kind of like when they advertise a phone bill to be $29.99 yet every month $25 worth of fees are on there of no consequence to you.
I don't like being "legally" mislead. - neonoodle, on 08/22/2008, -0/+16Sorry, naming the absolute worst examples of broadband connectivity and comparing the US to them is ***** stupid. We invented it, we should be leading in it. But that is far from the case.
- norman619, on 08/22/2008, -2/+18You do realize that if the telcos used the money the government gave them to upgrade their networks for what it was intended instead of pocketing it we wouldn't be having this discussion. They should be forced to do the upgrades or pay us back with interest. I say us because WE are the government. That was OUR money they received.
- pintomp3, on 08/22/2008, -2/+16it's a trap.
- yournamehere, on 08/21/2008, -2/+13as long as it's not a trojan horse then latency in the order of ~22ms strictly for P2P packets doesn't seem like much of an issue to me.
- dsmx, on 08/22/2008, -1/+11Yeah heaven forbid people actually getting the connection they pay for.
- asspants, on 08/22/2008, -2/+12"For example a T1 no longer cuts it for this day in age. In 1996 it may have been fine "
tell that to the millions of residents in rural areas all across the united states that STILL can't get DSL or cable. - Avian00, on 08/21/2008, -1/+10I never said that. In fact, I agreed that it makes sense to manage traffic. I just don't buy that they don't have enough money to build a higher-capacity network. It seems like they would rather use traffic shaping than spend the money it would take to build a better network. In the course of a decade, we're seen little to no growth in bandwidth for consumers. Meanwhile, they are charging out-of-control prices for this product they refuse to improve. People want to do more with the Internet, and it's simply going to take a faster network. Instead, Verizon (and other ISP's) would rather you continue to use the Internet to check your email while still subscribing to their own services for things like music, movies and television.
- coheedcollapse, on 08/22/2008, -3/+11I'm sorry, but if the network guys had as much power over us as they did when we didn't "need" the internet, we'd all be using 14.4k modems because "video, audio, and images cause too much latency to the common internet user".
- Noods, on 08/21/2008, -4/+11What he is talking about is the need to build for peak usage. If every network is forced to build for peak usage, this could require 25% or more capacity during peak times then is used during the rest of the day. That is 25%+ to the cost of capacity every year. The company will not absorb this cost. You will pay it. So why is it not valid to manage the network during peak times? And why does it make sense to not prioritize calls, which could be dropped if not prioritized?
- aspec, on 08/22/2008, -1/+8Delay... you say this so much. I do not think it means, what you think it means.
- inactive, on 08/22/2008, -5/+12Considering that this network was subsidized with taxpayer money to build, and I pay my bill, I should get unfettered access to the internet. Americans are being screwed by our ISP/Telcos.
- deepvirus, on 08/22/2008, -0/+7yeah it's "prohibitively expensive" to pay their fees, when there are more "time sensitive" things to purchase..... like beer!
- Phyltre, on 08/22/2008, -0/+7In this case, it's an issue with your computer saturating your router with connections. Well-designed corporate equipment should not encounter the same problem.
- Khast, on 08/22/2008, -1/+7We need to catch up to the rest of the world. As we sit here and talk about how to manage the network, other countries are getting what we consider "Gold Tier" as their lowest available option.....
We could obviously build the infrastructure for a fiber optic network nationwide, but it is all about keeping us under the corporate finger. They try to keep the old 80s network infrastructure (and in a lot of cases older than that.) going, putting as little into it as they can, so they can maximize their profit.
The second we allow things like this, is when they will find ways to go that one step further. As they say, give them an inch, and they'll take a mile. - rayblasdel, on 08/21/2008, -1/+7I'm not sure comparing their wireless pricing with their fiber offerings is fair. It's pretty obvious that not every division has access to unlimited funds or follows the same management doctrine. I don't see any other companies dropping $17 billion into infrastructure, and at a cost to consumers that is more competitive then most existing offerings from cable companies.
I hate Verizon Wireless, but have never seen such brilliant service and pricing as from the actual Verizon. One of the line dropping contractors messed up our FIOS drop box, so who came out to fix it? The regional line manager, and he actually cared that something was wrong. - jp12380, on 08/22/2008, -2/+8and surly it is the responsiblility of Verizon not to go against what the FCC has ruled regardless of what the contract says.
- Ajajadude, on 08/22/2008, -0/+6American internet infrastructure versus African internet infrastructure? Why don't we compare a Ferrari and a Toyota Echo while we're at it. And Australia is its own special case...I can't figure out what the hell went wrong with that country.
- moocow1452, on 08/22/2008, -4/+10Fortunately, FCC set legal precedent when they said no to P2P blocking.
- mikelieman, on 08/22/2008, -0/+5It was his money before he wrote the check to the IRS ( and or had it deducted automagically from his payroll checks.. . )
- Ellipsys, on 08/22/2008, -4/+9You start filtering, throttling, or otherwise telling me what I can do with my bandwidth, you lose your common carrier status. See, where I live there is exactly ONE DSL company - Verizon. Nobody else is allowed to use "their" copper. They installed all the infrastructure with huge taxpayer subsidies, and use their current stranglehold on the market to do whatever they wish. If they start pulling this kind of stuff, I have nowhere else to turn at the moment. This is the symptom of a larger problem - we should do what many other developed nations like Japan, Korea, and Scandinavian countries have done and construct all the infrastructure for telecommunications on our tax dollars, that we all might benefit. The gov't could then lease out the rights to this fiber to companies that wish to start ISPs. Thus, the barrier to entry is removed and monopolies and oligopolies are eliminated. Dear god, Digg - Perhaps I found a solution that both the "Socialists" and "Libertarians" could agree upon!
- adventis, on 08/22/2008, -0/+5Wow, that must be stoneage kind of speed. I could have swore the "56k" was 56 kbps...
- coheedcollapse, on 08/22/2008, -2/+7Yeah, but as it goes, it seems that all of the big companies are going this way. That leaves some random small company that we haven't heard of yet to lay an infrastructure across the whole country and suddenly pop out of nowhere to meet our needs - which is a highly unrealistic ideal.
I guess I'm a pessimist when it comes to this type of stuff, but I just find it hard to believe that some righteous ISP is going to pop out of the oblivion and save us.
Look at the wireless phone market. Since the moment that we "needed" the service, we've been getting screwed. No one has swooped out of the dark to save us from ludicrous texting rates (5 cents for 15 bits of data...really?) or unreasonable contracts. - norman619, on 08/22/2008, -2/+7He also does not mention the fact that the government actually gave them a ***** of money to do just that. Did they use the money to do the upgrades? No. They Took our money and put it in their pockets. I hope BOP (Broadband Over Powerlines) rolls out soon and competes with these scum.
- duggdowncatisad, on 08/22/2008, -2/+7There ought to be limits to freedom.
-- George W. Bush - Ghostalker, on 08/22/2008, -2/+6Getting some nice replies in here tonight.
- Ajajadude, on 08/22/2008, -0/+4Considering many areas only have ONE ISP to choose from, I'd say there are areas where companies have monopolies.
- willgonz, on 08/22/2008, -0/+4Well, there is a technology that can give the folks out in the boonies Internet. It is called BPL here read up on it.
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/bpl.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_line_communicat ...
It is already in production. Write your power company. - Ymeg, on 08/22/2008, -2/+6And why should not be allowed to delay their traffic as they deem necessary?
If you want internet, you go to a ISP, you ask for their services in exchange for your money, and they say "only if you agree to our terms" then you either accept, find someone else, do do without. - Moldyrutabaga, on 08/22/2008, -2/+6Before I moved to the states, I taught English in the countryside in south Korea. Outside my apartment window there were cows mooing; inside my window my $35-a-month internet connection was faster than anything I've yet seen here--and co-workers complained that people in Seoul had newer, better modems. This was two years ago. I'm skeptical of Verizon's explanations. It seems a convenient ruse to justify both blocking users who don't make your business partners money and having old, pokey infrastructure.
- nesagwa, on 08/22/2008, -2/+6Give them an inch and they WILL take a mile.
- DivisibleByZero, on 08/22/2008, -0/+3It's not a case of arbitrarily saying "your content can wait and mine can't". Different services inherently need different things. Streaming video or gaming? Those both need low-latency more than a large file download.
(and for the record, your YouTube video can handle a drop in service better than most games. Both in terms of buffering and working around dropped packets) - coheedcollapse, on 08/22/2008, -2/+5Many of us have no choice. In big cities you might have 4 or 5 different providers, but where I live (30 miles outside Chicago), we only have Verizon and Comcast, both of which are evil as hell.
- i4mt3hwin, on 08/22/2008, -2/+5As much as I hate verzion, I can't help but feel that they are in a better position to determine whether increasing bandwidth or managing traffic is a better choice.
- Fritzed, on 08/22/2008, -1/+4This is a straw man argument. Comcast did not get in trouble for "network management", they got in trouble for "network filtering" and fraud by lying about their practices.
- Ajajadude, on 08/22/2008, -2/+5I have to agree with coheed here. The big guys, across the board, don't seem to be interested in upgrading the infrastructure. They should have been doing that the moment they got into the business, but they haven't. And I doubt one company is going to come along and upgrade everything with their own money and then let all the other companies in on it.
- bjornski, on 08/22/2008, -1/+4Yeah? Well my YouTube video can't wait, your video game can.
Deal with it.
That's the attitude I'm hearing from way too many people.
It's time to break up the zoned monopolies for ISP/Cable services, damnit! - Jade10145, on 08/22/2008, -0/+3Avian I agree with you. I think the summary of the argument is, why innovate when you can bend consumers over backwards with out of control pricing and force them to deal with it. What is the motivation for innovation?
I think part of the issue is that a good portion of the infrastructure is owned by only a few companies. As such, I believe its rather difficult for new companies to break into the ISP market and offer a better, more innovative product. This is the reason that major ISP's continue to look for shortcuts for bandwidth management, instead of investing the capital to actually improve their networks, no competition, no incentive to change. - norman619, on 08/22/2008, -1/+4TheDread:
You are pretty damn ignorant. - 1310nm, on 08/22/2008, -0/+3I've always been impressed with Verizon's transparency and honesty at a corporate level.
- PakoBedejo, on 08/22/2008, -0/+3I'm sorry...but we're already paying it. If 100 customers have 20mb connections...then you'd better have 2000mb available at all times. Don't try to justify poor business practices which steal from customers. It's just like airlines selling you a seat...then selling that seat to someone else in case you don't show up.
- Ebulating, on 08/22/2008, -0/+3Building for peak usage is exactly what the electrical utilities have to do, and it IS expensive. I just read a study that demand-based electricity rates could reduce peak demand growth and save about $3 billion per year in power-plant costs. So we can see here that Verizon would rather use traffic shaping tools instead of spending a lot of money on peak capacity. Can you blame them?
- Risingashes, on 08/22/2008, -0/+3Wouldn't a better analogy be a supermarket offering every product imaginable, but only certain approved products that are stacked near the front of the store are able to be bought normally- while you are forced to wait an additional minute in a timeout booth for each nonapproved item you attempt to purchase?
This would only be if forced to use the supermarket of course. Doesn't really work as supermarkets actually need to pay to store additional items. -
Show 51 - 100 of 166 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is