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

Discussion in 'UK VOIP' 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/

    --
    Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.
    Brian A, Jan 23, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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!
    George Weston, Jan 23, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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, Jan 24, 2011
    #3
  4. 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*.
    The Natural Philosopher, Jan 24, 2011
    #4
  5. 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.

    >
    David Woolley, Jan 24, 2011
    #5
  6. 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.
    David Woolley, Jan 24, 2011
    #6
  7. Brian A

    DrTeeth Guest

    On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:38:18 +0000, just as I was about to take a
    herb, Andy Burns <> 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.
    DrTeeth, Jan 24, 2011
    #7
  8. Andy Burns wrote:

    >
    > If a few go bust then the decent ones would pick up some more worthwhile
    > customers.


    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
    #8
  9. In article <>,
    Andy Burns <> writes:
    > The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    >> 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*.

    >
    > 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?


    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
    [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
    Andrew Gabriel, Jan 30, 2011
    #9
  10. Andrew Gabriel wrote:

    > 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.
    >

    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
    #10
  11. David Woolley wrote:
    > Andrew Gabriel wrote:
    >
    >> 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.
    >>

    > 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.


    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
    #11
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. imhotep
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    484
    responder
    Jun 10, 2006
  2. www.BradReese.Com
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    437
    www.BradReese.Com
    Sep 9, 2007
  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    You lose some, and then you lose some ...

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 22, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    553
    Earl Grey
    Sep 24, 2006
  4. Lukagain Cos ThistleBounce

    Tivo, Telecom, & Net Neutrality.

    Lukagain Cos ThistleBounce, Sep 20, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    378
  5. NotMe

    Net Neutrality -- the wolves are circling

    NotMe, Apr 14, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    381
    §nühw¤£f
    Apr 16, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page