Tag: prioritization

Net Neutrality – Foolish, ignorant or disingenuous?

The popular press and news feeds have been full of stories about advocates of “net neutrality” testifying to congressional committees, lobbying the federal government and railing against the big ISPs over the past while.  Not much mention of arguments against net neutrality, though.  It’s hard to decide whether those arguing for net neutrality are foolish, ignorant or disingenuous.  
 
Let’s begin with some definitions. When someone demands “net neutrality”, they usually mean that the network must not discriminate between applications being carried in IP packets; that identical transmission characteristics (throughput, delay, number of errors, etc.) are to be provided for all packets regardless of what is being carried in them. They claim (correctly) that this is not the case at present, that the network service provider is “throttling” certain applications, “slowing down” or “shaping” traffic and that this, in their opinion, must stop. They sound the rallying cry “the net should be free”. 
 
What a load of hogwash.
But are these arguments foolish, ignorant or disingenuous?  Hard to decide: 

Continue reading “Net Neutrality – Foolish, ignorant or disingenuous?”

Net neutrality – not. VideoTutorial on Service Level Agreements, traffic shaping and traffic policing

This video tutorial explains Service Level Agreements, traffic profiles, transmission characteristics, and how Differentiated Services (Diff-Serv) is implemented to be able to provide different transmission characteristics for different kinds of traffic – the EXACT OPPOSITE of net neutrality.

watch on youtube

When someone demands “net neutrality”, they usually mean that the network must not discriminate between applications being carried in IP packets; that identical transmission characteristics (throughput, delay, number of errors, etc.) are to be provided for all packets regardless of what is being carried in them. They claim (correctly) that this is not the case at present, that the network service provider is “throttling” certain applications, “slowing down” or “shaping” traffic (the correct term is “policing”) and that this, in their opinion, must stop.

This video tutorial explains Service Level Agreements, traffic profiles, transmission characteristics, and how Differentiated Services (Diff-Serv) is implemented to be able to provide different transmission characteristics for different kinds of traffic – the EXACT OPPOSITE of net neutrality.

It is taken from Teracom’s DVD video V9 Understanding Voice over IP 2: Voice Packetization • Voice Quality • Codecs, Jitter and Packet Loss • Diff-Serv • Network QoS with MPLS

 

ALL “NET NEUTRALITY” ARTICLES:

Net Neutrality – Foolish, ignorant or disingenuous?

Net Neutrality II: If the power company allowed this, your electrical bill would double

Net neutrality – not. VideoTutorial on Service Level Agreements, traffic shaping and traffic policing

Is the Internet a Public Utility?

 

Visit Teracom Training Institute for more information on telecommunications training and voip training

Net Neutrality II: If the power company allowed this, your electrical bill would double.

If “net neutrality” principles were applied to electricity, it would be like having no electricity meter. Everyone pays the same, regardless how much power they use. The problem: if you’re one of the 99% of normal users, you would have to pay DOUBLE what you normally would, to cover the costs of the 1% of users constantly drawing 200 amps 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

Following up on a previous discussion, a demand for “net neutrality” usually means a demand that the network must not discriminate between applications being carried in IP packets; that identical transmission characteristics (throughput, delay, number of errors, etc.) are to be provided for all packets regardless of what is being carried in them.

But a demand for “net neutrality” is usually also wrapped together with a demand by these same people for no metering, no usage charges. This would mean that users who are continuously transmitting and receiving packets would pay the same flat rate as someone who is paying only for a typical traffic profile.

If this principle were applied to electricity, it would be like having no electricity meter. Everyone pays the same, regardless how much power they use. The problem: if you’re one of the 99% of normal users, you would have to pay DOUBLE what you normally would, to cover the costs of the 1% of users constantly drawing 200 amps 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

Here’s how that would work:
Continue reading “Net Neutrality II: If the power company allowed this, your electrical bill would double.”