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

Discussion in 'Broadband' started by Brian A, Jan 23, 2011.

  1. Brian A

    Brian A Guest

    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/
     
    Brian A, Jan 23, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Done!
     
    George Weston, Jan 23, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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, Jan 24, 2011
    #3
  4. Brian A

    Andy Burns Guest

    [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, Jan 24, 2011
    #4
  5. So make that *you*.
     
    The Natural Philosopher, Jan 24, 2011
    #5
  6. Brian A

    Rob Guest

    Done also

    Rob
     
    Rob, Jan 24, 2011
    #6
  7. 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.
     
    R. Mark Clayton, Jan 24, 2011
    #7
  8. 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.
     
    David Woolley, Jan 24, 2011
    #8
  9. 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.
     
    David Woolley, Jan 24, 2011
    #9
  10. Brian A

    DrTeeth Guest

    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.
     
    DrTeeth, Jan 24, 2011
    #10
  11. Brian A

    Andy Burns Guest

    I pay them what they ask for, which is currently 3.3x the cheapest rate
    they offer to new customers, actually I'm mid-process of upgrading to a
    better tariff, which comes at a lower price, so if they're after more
    money they should blame themselves, not the customer ... banishing the
    word "unlimited" would be a good start.
    If a few go bust then the decent ones would pick up some more worthwhile
    customers.
     
    Andy Burns, Jan 24, 2011
    #11
  12. The ones that survive will be the ones that find the most lucrative
    alternative sources of revenue, train their support people to fob off
    users as quickly as possible and pay those support people as little as
    possible.
     
    David Woolley, Jan 25, 2011
    #12
  13. Brian A

    Mark Guest

    I doubt they would do it if I didn't make a profit. I'm not aware of
    any ISPs with charitable status.
    --
    (\__/) M.
    (='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
    (")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
    posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
    everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
     
    Mark, Jan 25, 2011
    #13
  14. Brian A

    Mark Guest

    I can think of many companies that already do this. However there are
    still a few good ISPs.
    --
    (\__/) M.
    (='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
    (")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
    posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
    everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
     
    Mark, Jan 25, 2011
    #14
  15. Brian A

    MB Guest

    "George Weston" wrote in message
    Done!


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    As far as I can understand from the above, heavy uses of the Internet want
    the light users to subsidise them, that is what most complaints like this
    boil down to when you analyse them.

    Someone commented on Question Time or Any Questions recently that it is now
    so easy to get many thousands of signatures on a petition by posting
    messages on places like Facebook, Mumsnet that no one pays much attention to
    them.
     
    MB, Jan 25, 2011
    #15
  16. ISP competition has driven prices down to below cost in many cases,
    particularly for heavy users.

    A good proportion of ISP costs are volume based, but very few ISPs charge
    by volume, which means there's a lot of cross subsidy with light users
    paying for heavy users. That worked when there were very few heavy users,
    but it doesn't work now the number of heavy users has rapidly increased.

    They have to get to a point where they are charging by volume, but the
    intense competition between them is making this impossible to get going.
    Unfortunately, it probably means that several will go to the wall and
    competition is reduced, and with less competition the transition to
    volume based charging rather than the current stupid FUP's can happen.

    At the moment they are looking to the information providers to fund the
    carrying of the traffic for the heavy users. This is moving from one
    broken model to another broken model in my view.
     
    Andrew Gabriel, Jan 30, 2011
    #16
  17. On the other hand, I think it is questionable whether the internet would
    have ever become mass market if it had been volume charged.

    Packet Switch Stream's X.25 was designed by telephone companies, with
    billing as a major consideration, and was charged by volume. It never
    achieved the mass market. X.400 was technically sophisticated, but
    never hit the mass market, because different operators weren't prepared
    to operate the inter-carrier settlements, needed for accurate financial
    control.

    IP was designed with no consideration of billing at all. It succeeded
    because end users were charged a flat fee, when it hit the mass market,
    and, in particular, were not charged for email volume.
     
    David Woolley, Jan 30, 2011
    #17
  18. Yes, but I don think the failure of the X.Blah protocols was due to the
    costing models.

    Neither is it true to say that there is a volume cost to supplying an
    Internet: In fact at the final far end of the food chain, nearly all the
    costs are one of capital costs and are simply not related to volume
    whatsoever. They are related to CAPACITY.

    Two routers and a fibre connecting them capable of 8Gbps cost the same
    to run and to install whether there is 0bps or 8Gps going through them...

    The fact that people CHARGE volume at the bottom of the food chain,
    means that this is reflected up the chain.

    Its only when volume causes new capacity to be needed, does it actually
    affect costs.
     
    The Natural Philosopher, Jan 30, 2011
    #18
  19. Yes, but I don think the failure of the X.Blah protocols was due to the
    costing models.

    Neither is it true to say that there is a volume cost to supplying an
    Internet: In fact at the final far end of the food chain, nearly all the
    costs are one of capital costs and are simply not related to volume
    whatsoever. They are related to CAPACITY.

    Two routers and a fibre connecting them capable of 8Gbps cost the same
    to run and to install whether there is 0bps or 8Gps going through them...

    The fact that people CHARGE volume at the bottom of the food chain,
    means that this is reflected up the chain.

    Its only when volume causes new capacity to be needed, does it actually
    affect costs.
     
    The Natural Philosopher, Jan 30, 2011
    #19
  20. (Removing uk.telecom.{voip,mobile}.)

    This is true if you own both of the routers, but if you're buying
    Internet transit or ADSL over L2TP from BT, the same fibre with 8Gbps
    traffic on it will cost a lot more than the unused one. This *is*
    because of volume: if an ISP's customers (meaning other ISPs in this
    case) are using more bandwidth, they need more fibre internally to carry
    the traffic. One fibre might be flat rate, but once you need several,
    more bandwidth costs more.

    - river.
     
    River Tarnell, Jan 30, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.