Getting Rid Of Sidewalk Neutrality
from the analogies-are-fun dept
It's true that network neutrality is a complex issue -- which often leads people to various analogies to try to make it clearer. Some come across as silly, such as the series of tubes, and some are a lot more interesting. Bob Frankston is getting some attention today for his re-imagining of the network neutrality debate if it were about sidewalks instead of the internet. As others are noting, it helps highlight why congestion isn't really the issue. It is, once again, about protecting a business model, not about increasing innovation to make their own networks more valuable.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's the future, heaven help us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
P.S. why the %$&* would a hospital need internet priority?!?... I've never heard someone died because te network was congested :S
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: to Ryu
Ryu I'm sorry but if you think some guy playing a game online or downloading porn is more important then a doctor trying to get medical records for someone bleeding to death so they can make sure they don't have allergic reactions or medications reactions then you need to grow up..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: to Ryu
Didn't think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: to Ryu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: to Ryu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And also note that by DEDICATED they did mean dedicated. Which has nothing to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality is about prioritizing elements within a single network (to my understanding, im no internet professional or know specifically how it works), It has nothing to do with creating a "private" network for determined 'clients'.
Note that with my first post was the manipulative condition of the government's campaign (which government campaign isn't), and how they have managed to twist the information and drive away the attention from what's really important: Without net-neutrality the telcos will be able to control what goes through their pipes and what doesn't, or how fast or slow it goes i.e. you are only provided with what THEY want YOU to have, and if THEY dont like what YOU want, you are not getting it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hospital network priority
As far as from a security standpoint, your health information in the US is protected by the HIPAA act... information about patients is only permitted to be accessed by authorized caregivers directly associated with the patient being cared for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hospital network priority
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hospital network priority
As to bandwidth and emergency rooms? Or even the hospitals in general. Bandwidth is incredibly important in such situations. Someone quoted a difference of 20ms. Okay, fine. That's in one hop. And those hops add up very, very quickly. I'm also a transplant recipient, and if you think a couple of seconds doesn't matter here or there when someone is waiting to get a new heart or liver, then you need to think again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hospital network priority
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Having worked in IT for 7+ years, I still don't know what net neutrality really is, though I honestly never bothered to look it up.
Anyone care to explain it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't see what the big deal is. IPv6 has been around for years and allows for prioritization of packets, specifically for things like video and VoIP... yet I haven't seen it explicitly mentioned in any net neutrality article.
If the intention is to allow a "fast lane", then it would seem that IPv6 down to the end node (i.e. consumer computer) is the way to go.
I've got to keep reading, I guess. Hopefully I've got some kind of a grasp over what they're talking about. I've yet to see the term "net neutrality" defined in anything less than 3 paragraphs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really really dumbed down definition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're the reason so many people are creating analogies. Your ignorance blinds you. If the hospital is worth it's weight in feathers, it would purchase a dedicated bandwidth connection. Such as a T1 or DS3 or Fiber OC3, OC12 or higher.
And if that is the case, why not build a PRN with dedicated circuits between all hospitals. MPLS Private Ports are excelent. And a lot of businesses and governments already use them. There's no need for net neutrality there.
However, I know of too many health care providers and hospitals who try to run their LANs over simple ATM/Frame DSL connections. Come on, no need to talk net neutrallity with that sort of unreliable connection which shares it's bandwith with all other connections on the same ATM/Frame cloud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...who monitors the birds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bright Red Herrings
If its life or death, they better. If they arent, theyre being negligent.
"The Internet" has no prioritized traffic throughout and never has. Some networks in it will prioritize things, others different things.
There is no standard for this though.
If you dont understand anything about peering arrangements between Tier 1 ISPs and how BGP works (in general), then you dont understand anything about the way the Internet works today.
You need to start reading there if you want to have an informed opinion. From user TCP/IP standpoint, knowing networking is not good enough to understand how the internet works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
actually...
In such a situation, it's necessary to have high, dedicated bandwidth. Consider that it's not just the occassional request, but rather constant requests, many at a time, and from several locations. Buy more bandwidth? As most hospitals are non-profit, they generally don't have the funds. Besides, excepting with the government, when did ANYTHING overtake public healthcare as a priority?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/cap/2006_07_17_great_debate/debate .mp3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Telcos: Sell lots of Bandwidth cheaply to get Rich
A few years ago I would not have said that, but I realise that the increase in fibre capacity (currently about 150 Gigbytes/sec per fibre) and the ability to place lots of fibres in a one inch bundle i.e. over 50 in a 1 inch bundle under the Atlantic shows we can lay fibres easily to provide huge bandwidth ( 100 fibres X
170Gbyte/sec is 170000Gigabytes/set Not fast enough - lay another bundle ! The cost per bit is RAPIDLY tending towards zero).
This suggests that we can have all the bandwidth we need so that there will be no delay will not be a problem. In fact almost all the delays we see on the net to day are due to server delays not fiber bottleneck.
http://www.internettrafficreport.com Global Packet Loss
to see more.
I am reminded of my childhood in the UK. I paid for
every local phone call and so tried to use the phone as little as
possible. The phone company didn't get much revenue
from the users and so had to chage a lot per call, compared to the US users who was willing to use the phone more.
The much higher phone usage in the US had the effect of speeding up business in the US - both for the customer and the business who served the customer. I am sure that cheaper cost per call in the US helped the US economy to grow faster than that in the UK
If the telcos can focus -[ like e.g. Sweden] in providing
large fast high speed links than they will benefit from the
resutling economic growth. Without that the Us will run the risk of losing out in the info revolution as the innovators will innovate outside the US, much to its loss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all about the $
Now while all of this is a great logical arguement it does nothing to further the overall value of the network or foster innovation. But guess what, telcos paid for the last mile infrastructure and that's not their problem - it ain't a pretty answer - but it's the truth. If you want to foster the value of the network and create innovation get U. Sam to pay for laying fiber to the home and just have the telcos run it - then you have a leg to stand on. Otherwise you best build into your business plan the expectation that when you're on a private road (that last mile to my house) you should expect to pay the owner. (sorry couldn't resist an analogy - it was just too hard)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wheelchairs and Ambulences seem to have the right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SC gets the issue
It seems to me that the answer is quite simple, but it will never catch on because everybody would rather score political points. The answer would be to require that a certain portion of bandwidth be set aside for equal access. The rest of the bandwidth could be reserved for QoS based services. For example a service provider provides Joe 100 kpbps of bandwidth. 50 kbps of that is "neutral", the remainder can have differentiated services applied.
Both sides can be happy, hell, it might even make sense to have the end user choose how to divide up their network. Both extremes of this debate scare me ... here's hoping the extremes fail and a moderate view prevails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]