Comments on: It’s a truck . . . it’s a tube . . . it’s the internet! http://www.techsploitation.com/2006/07/17/its-a-truck-its-a-tube-its-the-internet/ Technology - Science - Pop Culture - Sex Fri, 13 Aug 2010 06:52:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Theo http://www.techsploitation.com/2006/07/17/its-a-truck-its-a-tube-its-the-internet/comment-page-1/#comment-1133 Theo Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:32:54 +0000 http://www.techsploitation.com/2006/07/17/its-a-truck-its-a-tube-its-the-internet/#comment-1133 The details of his argument aren't right -- I'm sure his "internet" was delayed by a transient problem with some server, and not because of the volume of other traffic, for example -- but the idea that neutrality causes this kind of qos crosstalk problem is valid. And when he suggests the possibility of a commercial net (rather than everyone getting their own "private internet") that is reasonable too. The implementation might not be a parallel set of wires (sorry, I mean tubes) but the idea of differentiating between high bandwidth, low jitter, etc. traffic which is carried for a premium, and standard uses of the network like email or http is completely sane. (*) Why should this lead to worse performance? Differentiated products are usually good for the consumer. If there's a market for plain old web access, then the network providers will provide it, and probably more cheaply, too, since they won't have to amortize the cost of the few heavy streaming video and bittorrent users across everyone else. If the market isn't working (and it might not, given the lack of choice among broadband providers) then use antitrust law. I'm afraid it's solid FUD to suggest that because your next router will be able to be reflashed across the network, the network provider has more control over the policies it applies to your connection. They're your network provider; they already control all the traffic you send or receive through a point-to-point connection to their machines anyway. As Scott McNealy would say, get over it. But also, you do have a contract with them. We're not just victims. (* It could just involve virtualizing the network link, say a home DSL connection, with a different cost and performance guarantee on each virtual link. I think this is a useful way of thinking about it: one of the leading virtualization software projects, Xen, originally grew out of attempts to provide quality-of-service guarantees for different applications. Ironically, the expression "leaky bucket" is used technically to describe a common policy for qos traffic shaping... god forbid that anyone should use such an ignorant metaphor in describing the internet) The details of his argument aren’t right — I’m sure his “internet” was delayed by a transient problem with some server, and not because of the volume of other traffic, for example — but the idea that neutrality causes this kind of qos crosstalk problem is valid. And when he suggests the possibility of a commercial net (rather than everyone getting their own “private internet”) that is reasonable too. The implementation might not be a parallel set of wires (sorry, I mean tubes) but the idea of differentiating between high bandwidth, low jitter, etc. traffic which is carried for a premium, and standard uses of the network like email or http is completely sane. (*)

Why should this lead to worse performance? Differentiated products are usually good for the consumer. If there’s a market for plain old web access, then the network providers will provide it, and probably more cheaply, too, since they won’t have to amortize the cost of the few heavy streaming video and bittorrent users across everyone else. If the market isn’t working (and it might not, given the lack of choice among broadband providers) then use antitrust law.

I’m afraid it’s solid FUD to suggest that because your next router will be able to be reflashed across the network, the network provider has more control over the policies it applies to your connection. They’re your network provider; they already control all the traffic you send or receive through a point-to-point connection to their machines anyway. As Scott McNealy would say, get over it. But also, you do have a contract with them. We’re not just victims.

(* It could just involve virtualizing the network link, say a home DSL connection, with a different cost and performance guarantee on each virtual link. I think this is a useful way of thinking about it: one of the leading virtualization software projects, Xen, originally grew out of attempts to provide quality-of-service guarantees for different applications.

Ironically, the expression “leaky bucket” is used technically to describe a common policy for qos traffic shaping… god forbid that anyone should use such an ignorant metaphor in describing the internet)

]]> By: annalee http://www.techsploitation.com/2006/07/17/its-a-truck-its-a-tube-its-the-internet/comment-page-1/#comment-1097 annalee Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:01:09 +0000 http://www.techsploitation.com/2006/07/17/its-a-truck-its-a-tube-its-the-internet/#comment-1097 The thing is, if you take his argument seriously (which I do in my column), he never mentions the tragedy of the commons. Instead, he talks about how his e-mail is slow. Then he suggests that a lack of network neutrality will mean that everybody gets their own private internet, which simply isn't true. In fact, it means large corporations will get to set the terms on which we each as individuals receive information over the internet. So we will have less control, and less choice as consumers. The thing is, if you take his argument seriously (which I do in my column), he never mentions the tragedy of the commons. Instead, he talks about how his e-mail is slow. Then he suggests that a lack of network neutrality will mean that everybody gets their own private internet, which simply isn’t true. In fact, it means large corporations will get to set the terms on which we each as individuals receive information over the internet. So we will have less control, and less choice as consumers.

]]> By: Theo http://www.techsploitation.com/2006/07/17/its-a-truck-its-a-tube-its-the-internet/comment-page-1/#comment-1090 Theo Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:32:43 +0000 http://www.techsploitation.com/2006/07/17/its-a-truck-its-a-tube-its-the-internet/#comment-1090 His terminology and metaphors may be funny, but his argument is correct. Net Neutrality laws are foolish and would inevitably lead to a tragedy of the commons. (oh, and I have a CS degree, but that doesn't mean I feel that I have to sneer at people who try to talk about technology in layman's terms.) His terminology and metaphors may be funny, but his argument is correct. Net Neutrality laws are foolish and would inevitably lead to a tragedy of the commons. (oh, and I have a CS degree, but that doesn’t mean I feel that I have to sneer at people who try to talk about technology in layman’s terms.)

]]>