Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Da Dego, 14 Aug 2007.
We need world wide net neutrality! All ISPs are doing something similar.
We don't need net neutrality we need data centric networking It's a long video but extremely interesting (once you get past the awfully long introduction to the speaker). If Van manages to make this revolution happen it'd be beneficial for ISPs to give you big fat interweb pipes.
Basically data is encrypted & signed and can be accessed from anywhere it's been downloaded to. So an ISP can reduce it's backbone bandwidth usage by increasing users bandwidth. A lot of data requested will come from other users of that ISP kinda like an intelligent universal bittorrent. It also would implicitly create net neutrality because as Van puts it if you move bits you are part of a network. ISPs wouldn't be able to hold connectivity or speed to ransom because there will be another way to communicate in the video he gives the example of uploading data to an aeroplane then downloading it once it's reached it's destination.
Watch the video it'll do a much better job explaining this than I can.
Much like sgr55 said, we pay arrond £25k a month for a 155 central (we have 3 at the moment but are moving provider). If you want 8 mbit a day, all day, we can fit 18 people on it.
Thats £1400 each, and we have not yet paid BT for the tails, or included the bandwith charges from our peering partners.
Then we need to add the cost of running and maitaining it, the support staff etc. Oh and lets not forget recouping the £50k it cost to have the central put in..
if you want to pay £2000 a month for your net access then go ahead...
I am with tisacli although not willingly (my parents are too lazy to change ISP). The speeds used to be awful and ping bad after the first month (I think they gave you higher priority while you could still cancel as it suddenly got slower). Later on the speeds improved but Bit torrent stopped working properly (very very annoying as I like to try out lots of operating systems and I feel bad running up peoples hosting bill) but packet loss and ping have improved a lot. Frequently we used to get emails telling us that we used too much bandwidth and then for a month or so internet access would be super slow and DNS sometimes unreachable as we had been put in some remedial group of "heavy users". The way round this was to switch to there bissinous package which has no fair usage policy and was cheaper, but the bit torrent problem is still there. They sold us unlimited internet originally, I think restricting bit torrent is not unlimited.
Tiscalis filtering is also annoying as encrypted bit torrent doesn't help as it looks at the patten of packets and not the header. Bit torrent isn't even very good for illegal files as its very easy to see what everyone's downloading so I don't understand why it's blocked.
this is f****** ridiculous
I pay for 2mb Internet (well up to 8mb but i know its only 2mb)
Why cant i utilise all 2mb all day every day, i pay for it, i should get what i want
And even if the "fair use" crap says i have a bandwidth of 20gb, why does any of it have to be throttled, I'm paying for 2mb, not 2mb when no-one else wants to use the Internet
This is only a problem because ISP's in the UK are too f****** cheap to actually put in a network that supports enough speed so there isn't huge congestion's
Does this surpirse me? NO, not in the slightest. In some respects, there are two many ISP's operating in the UK, and not many offer what people want.
Seeing as there is really only one network for most ISPs its actually just BT being lazy.
I'm with Virgin Media and I get close to 4Mb during the day and half that at night (why they do this is beyond me but it isn't much of a problem). I am a very heavy internet user and apart from sending me letters offering their business package they haven't made any fuss.
"So what we have here is an ISP acknowledging that there could be congestion on the internet in the future. But instead of making sure that its equipment and hardware can handle the copious amounts of traffic with ease, it's putting the blame on companies who are actually listening to what their customers want. Go figure."
This is really starting to surface as a possible long term problem, even beyond net neutrality. The internet is being used more and more to exclusively host communications and media content, and as our hard drives get bigger and increase in number around the world, will the tubes simply not keep up? Are telecommunications companies being hindered as a subsidized commodity to the point that a free market would fail? That being, they charge customers whatever in order to develop and upgrade tube technology, but competition keeps prices healthy for said customer.
Sorry if I screwed up the way one should quote from the article, noob here.
If I pay for 8mb I want 8mb. It can have the advertised contention ratio of 50:1, but I dont want them throttling, prioritising, filtering, monitoring or messing with my traffic. Sure I might not get the advertised speeds during peak time. But they advertise a 50:1 contention ratio and they should be forced to keep it. Not load 32k customers or whatever onto one central pipe. I dont mind paying more the £14.99 or whatever it is that seems to be average now.
As it stands I pay £24 for Be internet - completely unlimited.
Didn't BT want to do this a couple of decades ago and Maggie told them to sod off?
From the link in your quote
haha, famous last words.
IT's not even the speeds consumers need. It's just the reliable bandwidth. We need the network to be able to provide everyone with say, 10mbit/s, whenever they choose to use it. Who cares how fast the tap flows if it's only turned on half the day?
might want to go check your contract
its not unlimited, they have a "fair use" so they will cut you off if you use more then an undisclosed bandwidth a month
I think unofficially its rumoured to be like 60gb a month ?
I went to the supermarket and was told I could have a trolly but they only had 7 items or less tills
Separate names with a comma.