Well, actually, you see, the fact that U-Verse customers can get U-Verse programming on the road doesn't really change anything. The source of the programming is still AT&T and the consumer is still AT&T's customer, so it's still not an "Internet service" in the sense that anyone can put stuff into it and anyone can take stuff out of it.
It will be interesting to see whether U-Verse OnTheGo does any sort of QoS; I'm guessing it doesn't, hence it's beside the point.
Nice try though, you've probably confused some children and old people.
The fact that IPTV uses Internet Protocol doesn't make it an Internet service. We use IP on virtually all private networks, and that doesn't mean all private network services are "on the Internet."
AT&T's IPTV service is just as private as Comcast's Cable TV service. The fact that it's implemented with different protocols (IP vs. DOCSIS) isn't really signficant.
And for the record, I'm not employed by a phone company nor do I have any financial relationship with any phone company or any company with the dog in the NN fight. I speak for myself only.
...and neither is telephony. Google doesn't have any right to put programs on the Cable TV company's channel lineup, nor do they have any right to invade the telcos' IPTV channel lineup. The Internet is a very nice thing, but it's not all there is in the world of networks.
From the mind of SOTM we receive this gem of wisdom: "If Net Neutrality will ruin the internet, capitalism, the free market and chocolate chip cookies (as you claim), why did the telco's lift their skirts and agree to it for 2 years as part of the ATT BS merger?"
Um, you see, they actually didn't. They agreed to abide by phony net neutrality (only where web sites are concerned), but they got an exemption for telephony and IPTV. And that was the point all along: web sites don't benefit from QoS, they simply need bandwidth. IPTV and VoIP, networked services that don't depend on the Web or even the public Internet to be successful, do need QoS and they're exempt from NN.
The people who claimed NN was needed to protect web sites from QoS never understood the issue. When Ed Whitacre said "Google ain't using my pipes for free" he meant the IPTV pipes, and verily, they can't.
So there you are, little bubba, you've been informed. Now it's up to you to understand the lesson.
By all means, go and read all the stuff that I've written about net neutrality, esp. the comments on Shouting Loudly where I explain the difference between an ad hominem argument and a rational conclusion. And by all means go the Wayback Machine and see the political blog I operated in 1996.
And then contribute to the "Get ScaredOfTheMan a Shrink Fund," because if this deluded soul thinks he or she has made an argument (putting premise before conclusion and supporting assertions with facts) he or she is in a sad way.
The telephone network provides QoS, and you don't have to pay every telephone company that terminates calls, they settle among themselves. QoS on the Internet works the same way.
The Google employee you mention, Vinton "Vint" Cerf, was an assistant to the great Bob Kahn when Kahn invented TCP. He stands along among early Internet pioneers in advocating increased regulation of the Internet. Cerf's professor, Dav Farber, Kahn, and End-to-End pioneer David D. Clark are all on record opposing the new net neutrality regulations.
Regarding your claim that telcos don't innovate, this is a surprisingly naive thing to say, especially for a Google fan. Google has developed some great means for selling ads, but that's hardly innovation. The phone companies, on the other hand, invented digital networks, the transistor, the Unix operating system, the C programming language, twisted-pair Ethernet, and optical networking.
If Google's ad network had never existed the Internet would be just fine, but without the technologies the phone companies have invented, there would be no Internet.
The network engineers I'm tallking about, Mr. Wizard, are the people who devise the protocols that go into IEEE 802 and IETF standards, not the guy at your company who sets up e-mail accounts and worries about your firewall. The people I'm talking about are the ones who know what it takes to keep the traffic moving at a high rate of speed on wireless, cable, twisted-pair, and fiber-optic networks.
Your scenarios are simply ridiculous. Nobody's going to pay to have their e-mail move through the net with no jitter, it's just not a valuable thing.
And "Scared of the Man", every little bit of QoS helps, whether it's end-to-end or not, and yes indeed, my telco buddies want to drum up some more revenue by adding rich services. It's called capitalism, and it's what makes the world go 'round. Try networking without a network and tell me how satisfying it is for you.
You can access any site you want on the "public" Internet, but you can't use any route you want to get there, only the ones you and your ISP have paid to use.
Some routes are faster than others, and somebody will generally have to pay more to use those routes than the slower ones. This model works perfectly well on the Internet today, and has for many years.
It's perfectly practical for Comcast and Verizon to make deals with Level 3 or Global Crossing or Verio or WebEx such that the core or overlay provider takes traffic marked a certain way and delivers it to the destination network with bounded jitter, and that's all you need for decent QoS.
Business users, ISPs and NSPs make agreements today regarding QoS. There doesn't have to be a wholesale agreement on how to mark packets and streams, just agreement where hand-offs occur, and this is done routinely today.
These agreements are such that low-latency streams command a higher price than bulk streams, and that's as it should be. Nobody gets to use any Internet pipe for free.
This fantasy that Internet routers are "first-in, first out" repeaters is also a load of crap. Routers select routes for packets that conform to contracts and service requirements, not in some highly random willy-nilly fashion.
And what on Earth is a "public Internet?" The only Internet the public has access to is a network of private networks interconnected by commercial service contracts. The Internet is not a free ride.
And for the record, network engineers have always been on record as opposed to network neutrality regulations. Dave Farber, Grandfather of the Internet, and Bob Kahn, father of the Internet. have spoken very strongly in favor of innovation inside the core, from the beginning of this dubious debate. Cisco has always been against it, and so have the core network providers such as Global Crossing. The idea that NN is some sort of "good guys" movement sticking it to The (Telco) Man is a total hallucination.
In fact, the lead proponents of NN are professional telco regulators facing unemployment thanks to the success of VoIP; Save the Internet is funded by Free Press and the consumer groups, the most regulation-happy organizations in America.
Net Neutrality is not the legal or operational status quo on the Internet today, so there's no question of "retaining" it. Network operators sell different levels of service to ISPs and business Internet users already.
The entire Internet runs on toll roads policed by gatekeepers and has ever since the NSF backbone was shut down over ten years ago.
And it's obviously silly to let anyone and everyone demand high-QoS for every stream, that defeats the whole purpose of it. As long as the Internet has been under commercial control, it's followed the principle that you get what you pay for. That's the only way it should ever be.
Google's approach doesn't show more respect for copyright, it shows more respect for authors, if one buys the assumption that they all want their out-of-print works available to the public. I suspect some do and some don't, but it has nothing to do with copyright.
A link on Lessig's site suggests that his estimate of total books is inflated by a factor of 4 or 5, so the number of books out of print but still under copyright is substantially less than what he wants it to be.
Lessig generally exaggerates the bad and minimizes the good, it's his claim to fame.
So, JJ, you're making claims that you can't back up, and then trying to cover-up your lack of data with a strawman attack. I never said there's no investment in the infrastructure, and neither did Deloitte. What they did say is that the investment isn't *keeping up* with the demand, and I'm taking their word for it.
On the second point, I've already cited three paragraphs from the section on Net Neutrality that support it, and one from the Executive Summary.
You and Mike have cited nothing, because you have nothing.
You dashed-off an unwarranted personal attack on Phil Kerpen, and when you were called on it, you made a "non-apology apology" and you think that lets you off the hook.
The basic facts are these: Kerpen accurately portrays the study in question, which you admit you hadn't read until *after* attacking him. That "I had no access to it" argument is BS because nobody held a gun to your head and made you slander the the man.
The Telcos have said for the last 10 years that applying telecom regulations to Internet access would result in telecom-like investment strategies. Deloitte confirms that demand for Internet bandwidth is growing faster than supply. They say that net neutrality will have to be cleared up in order to rectify that problem, as telcos have been very clear that it's an impediment to investment. That's been pretty much their main argument from day 1.
This is all verifiable and I have offered up the quotes that prove it. Now if you think you can hold Telcos and Google-minions to account for their spin and distortion, you're going to have to do better than you have in this instance. Your credibility has taken a big hit from your refusal to fully and honestly correct a glaring error.
I criticized you for calling Kerpen a liar when he didn't lie. Turning the argument back on me doesn't redeem you for making a false claim, and your correction doesn't go far enough to amount to an honest correction. See what Doc Searls wrote in his retraction, and use that as a model for yours.
And BTW, "net neuts" isn't a slur, it's simply a convenient nickname for those seeking to regulate the Internet with net neutrality regulations. If you want an insulting name for this set, "Google bitches" fills the bill.
On the post: Network Operators Not The Only Ones Against A Neutral Internet
Ha ha ho ho hee hee
It will be interesting to see whether U-Verse OnTheGo does any sort of QoS; I'm guessing it doesn't, hence it's beside the point.
Nice try though, you've probably confused some children and old people.
On the post: Network Operators Not The Only Ones Against A Neutral Internet
Jesus Christ on a stick
Meditate on this: The Internet is not IP, and IP is not the Internet. The two are related, but not the same.
On the post: Network Operators Not The Only Ones Against A Neutral Internet
SOTM's fundamental confusion
AT&T's IPTV service is just as private as Comcast's Cable TV service. The fact that it's implemented with different protocols (IP vs. DOCSIS) isn't really signficant.
And for the record, I'm not employed by a phone company nor do I have any financial relationship with any phone company or any company with the dog in the NN fight. I speak for myself only.
On the post: Network Operators Not The Only Ones Against A Neutral Internet
IPTV is not an Internet service
On the post: Network Operators Not The Only Ones Against A Neutral Internet
tsk, tsk, tsk
Um, you see, they actually didn't. They agreed to abide by phony net neutrality (only where web sites are concerned), but they got an exemption for telephony and IPTV. And that was the point all along: web sites don't benefit from QoS, they simply need bandwidth. IPTV and VoIP, networked services that don't depend on the Web or even the public Internet to be successful, do need QoS and they're exempt from NN.
The people who claimed NN was needed to protect web sites from QoS never understood the issue. When Ed Whitacre said "Google ain't using my pipes for free" he meant the IPTV pipes, and verily, they can't.
So there you are, little bubba, you've been informed. Now it's up to you to understand the lesson.
On the post: Network Operators Not The Only Ones Against A Neutral Internet
The devil made SOTM do it...
And then contribute to the "Get ScaredOfTheMan a Shrink Fund," because if this deluded soul thinks he or she has made an argument (putting premise before conclusion and supporting assertions with facts) he or she is in a sad way.
On the post: Network Operators Not The Only Ones Against A Neutral Internet
Nothing more to say to you
On the post: Network Operators Not The Only Ones Against A Neutral Internet
Vint Cerf
On the post: Network Operators Not The Only Ones Against A Neutral Internet
Naive and foolish
The Google employee you mention, Vinton "Vint" Cerf, was an assistant to the great Bob Kahn when Kahn invented TCP. He stands along among early Internet pioneers in advocating increased regulation of the Internet. Cerf's professor, Dav Farber, Kahn, and End-to-End pioneer David D. Clark are all on record opposing the new net neutrality regulations.
Regarding your claim that telcos don't innovate, this is a surprisingly naive thing to say, especially for a Google fan. Google has developed some great means for selling ads, but that's hardly innovation. The phone companies, on the other hand, invented digital networks, the transistor, the Unix operating system, the C programming language, twisted-pair Ethernet, and optical networking.
If Google's ad network had never existed the Internet would be just fine, but without the technologies the phone companies have invented, there would be no Internet.
On the post: Network Operators Not The Only Ones Against A Neutral Internet
Real network engineers oppose net neutrality
Your scenarios are simply ridiculous. Nobody's going to pay to have their e-mail move through the net with no jitter, it's just not a valuable thing.
And "Scared of the Man", every little bit of QoS helps, whether it's end-to-end or not, and yes indeed, my telco buddies want to drum up some more revenue by adding rich services. It's called capitalism, and it's what makes the world go 'round. Try networking without a network and tell me how satisfying it is for you.
On the post: Network Operators Not The Only Ones Against A Neutral Internet
Nope, not right
Some routes are faster than others, and somebody will generally have to pay more to use those routes than the slower ones. This model works perfectly well on the Internet today, and has for many years.
It's perfectly practical for Comcast and Verizon to make deals with Level 3 or Global Crossing or Verio or WebEx such that the core or overlay provider takes traffic marked a certain way and delivers it to the destination network with bounded jitter, and that's all you need for decent QoS.
On the post: Network Operators Not The Only Ones Against A Neutral Internet
Nope
These agreements are such that low-latency streams command a higher price than bulk streams, and that's as it should be. Nobody gets to use any Internet pipe for free.
This fantasy that Internet routers are "first-in, first out" repeaters is also a load of crap. Routers select routes for packets that conform to contracts and service requirements, not in some highly random willy-nilly fashion.
And what on Earth is a "public Internet?" The only Internet the public has access to is a network of private networks interconnected by commercial service contracts. The Internet is not a free ride.
On the post: Network Operators Not The Only Ones Against A Neutral Internet
In fact, the lead proponents of NN are professional telco regulators facing unemployment thanks to the success of VoIP; Save the Internet is funded by Free Press and the consumer groups, the most regulation-happy organizations in America.
On the post: Network Operators Not The Only Ones Against A Neutral Internet
You make a huge error
The entire Internet runs on toll roads policed by gatekeepers and has ever since the NSF backbone was shut down over ten years ago.
And it's obviously silly to let anyone and everyone demand high-QoS for every stream, that defeats the whole purpose of it. As long as the Internet has been under commercial control, it's followed the principle that you get what you pay for. That's the only way it should ever be.
On the post: Perhaps Google Has Even More Respect For Copyright Than Microsoft
Nope
A link on Lessig's site suggests that his estimate of total books is inflated by a factor of 4 or 5, so the number of books out of print but still under copyright is substantially less than what he wants it to be.
Lessig generally exaggerates the bad and minimizes the good, it's his claim to fame.
On the post: Verizon Wins Patent Case Against Vonage; Now Pushing To Shut Down Vonage Service
Re: Apple sucks
On the post: The Internet Will Collapse And It's The Fault Of People Pushing For Network Neutrality?
On the second point, I've already cited three paragraphs from the section on Net Neutrality that support it, and one from the Executive Summary.
You and Mike have cited nothing, because you have nothing.
On the post: The Internet Will Collapse And It's The Fault Of People Pushing For Network Neutrality?
On the post: The Internet Will Collapse And It's The Fault Of People Pushing For Network Neutrality?
A basic lack of integrity
The basic facts are these: Kerpen accurately portrays the study in question, which you admit you hadn't read until *after* attacking him. That "I had no access to it" argument is BS because nobody held a gun to your head and made you slander the the man.
The Telcos have said for the last 10 years that applying telecom regulations to Internet access would result in telecom-like investment strategies. Deloitte confirms that demand for Internet bandwidth is growing faster than supply. They say that net neutrality will have to be cleared up in order to rectify that problem, as telcos have been very clear that it's an impediment to investment. That's been pretty much their main argument from day 1.
This is all verifiable and I have offered up the quotes that prove it. Now if you think you can hold Telcos and Google-minions to account for their spin and distortion, you're going to have to do better than you have in this instance. Your credibility has taken a big hit from your refusal to fully and honestly correct a glaring error.
On the post: The Internet Will Collapse And It's The Fault Of People Pushing For Network Neutrality?
That's a clever dodge
And BTW, "net neuts" isn't a slur, it's simply a convenient nickname for those seeking to regulate the Internet with net neutrality regulations. If you want an insulting name for this set, "Google bitches" fills the bill.
Next >>