Net Neutrality - Sign EU Petition - Do it or lose it!

Internet Service Providers want to be able to run a 2 tier Internet
where they decide what will go fast and what will go slow. To some extent
this already operates. More than
that, though, they could decide to block some sites and impede certain
services - for example they might say - oh yes you can use voip but then
actively drop packets so the service is unusable.
Mobile phone providers already block some services. For example,
T-Mobile block SIP voip even if you have 3G of data. They say
they want more money to give an unblocked connection. This can only get
worse unless it is nipped in the bud because, afaik, our Politicians have
already given a green light.
Do you believe that if you pay for a data allowance you should be able to
use that data in any way you wish? Well I do!!

It is likely that there will be more petitions like this, so please
watch out for them. If you see another please post the info. I did check
the 'No.10' petition web site but, very surprisingly, I couldn't find a
petition. Perhaps I used the wrong search terms.

Click on 'Sign Now' to get to the Petition. Remember to check your email
including the 'Spam' or 'Junk' folder, in order to confirm your email
address. Addresses not confirmed mean your 'signature' won't count.

http://www.euopeninternet.eu/

--
Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.

On 23/01/2011 22:37, Brian A wrote:
> Internet Service Providers want to be able to run a 2 tier Internet
> where they decide what will go fast and what will go slow. To some extent
> this already operates. More than
> that, though, they could decide to block some sites and impede certain
> services - for example they might say - oh yes you can use voip but then
> actively drop packets so the service is unusable.
> Mobile phone providers already block some services. For example,
> T-Mobile block SIP voip even if you have 3G of data. They say
> they want more money to give an unblocked connection. This can only get
> worse unless it is nipped in the bud because, afaik, our Politicians have
> already given a green light.
> Do you believe that if you pay for a data allowance you should be able to
> use that data in any way you wish? Well I do!!
>
> It is likely that there will be more petitions like this, so please
> watch out for them. If you see another please post the info. I did check
> the 'No.10' petition web site but, very surprisingly, I couldn't find a
> petition. Perhaps I used the wrong search terms.
>
> Click on 'Sign Now' to get to the Petition. Remember to check your email
> including the 'Spam' or 'Junk' folder, in order to confirm your email
> address. Addresses not confirmed mean your 'signature' won't count.
>
> http://www.euopeninternet.eu/
>
Done!

Brian A wrote:
> Internet Service Providers want to be able to run a 2 tier Internet
> where they decide what will go fast and what will go slow. To some extent
> this already operates. More than

VoIP tends to *require* such an internet! IP is not naturally suited to
VoIP, because it is a statistical medium that relies on a certain
level of packet loss for congestion control.

Corporate VoIP systems use Differentiated Services coding on VoIP
traffic to give it priority over normal traffic, in particular they
typically give speech Expedited Flow (EF) type of service, which means,
subject to quotas, that traffic will not be dropped and will have
priority over, say, web browsing.

The internet just wasn't designed for VoIP. Packet based networks
developed by the PTTs, basically ATM, where. They reserve bandwidth for
speech. This sort of capability is being bolted onto IP routers, but
does mean that there has to be positive discrimination in favour of VoIP.

If you insist on an internet that doesn't distort priorities, you will
have an internet that is not suitable for VoIP.

David Woolley wrote:

> Brian A wrote:
>
>> Internet Service Providers want to be able to run a 2 tier Internet
>> where they decide what will go fast and what will go slow.
>
> VoIP tends to *require* such an internet!

[snip stuff about differentiating different types of traffic]

But the fast/slow lanes won't be determined by what type of traffic
needs to go fast/slow, it'll be determined by whether it's going to/from
someone who has paid your ISP a 'bung'.

Andy Burns wrote:
> David Woolley wrote:
>
>> Brian A wrote:
>>
>>> Internet Service Providers want to be able to run a 2 tier Internet
>>> where they decide what will go fast and what will go slow.
>> VoIP tends to *require* such an internet!
>
> [snip stuff about differentiating different types of traffic]
>
> But the fast/slow lanes won't be determined by what type of traffic
> needs to go fast/slow, it'll be determined by whether it's going to/from
> someone who has paid your ISP a 'bung'.
>
So make that *you*.

>
> Click on 'Sign Now' to get to the Petition. Remember to check your email
> including the 'Spam' or 'Junk' folder, in order to confirm your email
> address. Addresses not confirmed mean your 'signature' won't count.
>
> http://www.euopeninternet.eu/

Done also

Rob

"David Woolley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ihjbc4$9a0$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Brian A wrote:
>> Internet Service Providers want to be able to run a 2 tier Internet
>> where they decide what will go fast and what will go slow. To some extent
>> this already operates. More than
>
> VoIP tends to *require* such an internet! IP is not naturally suited to
> VoIP, because it is a statistical medium that relies on a certain level of
> packet loss for congestion control.

IP does not usually drop packets, but they may be delayed or delivered in
the wrong order (requiring re-assembly). There are also typically a lot of
hops in an IP path. These lead to high latency (like on a call via
satellite) and jitter.

>
> Corporate VoIP systems use Differentiated Services coding on VoIP traffic
> to give it priority over normal traffic, in particular they typically give
> speech Expedited Flow (EF) type of service, which means, subject to
> quotas, that traffic will not be dropped and will have priority over, say,
> web browsing.
>
> The internet just wasn't designed for VoIP. Packet based networks
> developed by the PTTs, basically ATM, where. They reserve bandwidth for
> speech. This sort of capability is being bolted onto IP routers, but does
> mean that there has to be positive discrimination in favour of VoIP.
>
> If you insist on an internet that doesn't distort priorities, you will
> have an internet that is not suitable for VoIP.

R. Mark Clayton wrote:

> IP does not usually drop packets, but they may be delayed or delivered in

It will drop them if a router buffer overflows, and that will trigger
TCP receivers to reduce their window size and therefore the offered
traffic. Given there is no centralised capacity management, modern TCP
recipients start with a low window size and build it up until they start
to lose packets, then tweak it around that point to keep the packet loss
low.

With the advent of VoIP and its lack of flow control some other
mechanisms were added, to allow the network to shut down senders rapidly
in an overload.

Going over-quota in differentiated services networks will definitely get
your packets thrown away, as that this the only sanction against people
who abuse it to get everything ASAP.

>

Andy Burns wrote:

>
> Funnily enough, I already pay my ISP, and I suspect the people I wish to
> communicate with also pay their ISPs, why should either of us pay again?
>

You almost certainly don't pay them enough. One of big problems for
mass market ISPs is that the market is so price sensitive that they
can't really make a profit from it.

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:38:18 +0000, just as I was about to take a
herb, Andy Burns <(E-Mail Removed)> disturbed my reverie
and wrote:

>Funnily enough, I already pay my ISP, and I suspect the people I wish to
>communicate with also pay their ISPs, why should either of us pay again?

So the ISPs can make MORE money.
--

Cheers,

DrT

** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
** out of someone who richly deserves it.