• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

AT&T On Net Neutrality

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
You guys seriously have to read this blog post by AT&T vice president Hank Hultquist. You might have to skip all the talk of dogma, pagans, hegemons, faith-based initiatives and other stuff…and even then you’ll probably have to read it twice to figure out what the hell this guy is talking about. :eek:

The CoENN creed against quality of service states that paid prioritization of Internet traffic: (1) has never been contemplated by standards organizations like the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF); (2) does not exist on the Internet today and, to the extent it exists anywhere, is probably being used nefariously by the pagans; and (3) if it did exist on the Internet, it would be available to and affordable for only a small number of deep-pocketed hegemons.
Click to expand...
 
First off, Did he really just make Net Neutral fans their own religion in one paragraph? (Googling CoENN produced the above article, yet no relevant redirection to said organization, which would more than likely, given its cause, at least have a website)

Does this person really think Name calling is going to help his point?

I can see the Net Neutrality argument on both sides. However one side is concerned netizens (and more than likely, mostly porn surfers) and the other is Big Business. No level of big business "blogs" will help their cause. That being said, their pockets books will more than likely prevail.

I just read this article as less technical proof, and more petty name calling and bashing. It reads horribly, and the dude came off as a douche. Even if he had a point. I lost in his kindergarten-esk internet tongue sticking out.
 
It only takes one of these "deep pocketed hegemons" he speaks of to ruin the internet for everyone.
 
Quick and dirty translation: he claims that AT&T has debunked the claims of net neutrality supporters in a letter they filed yesterday in the FCC's Open Internet proceedings. The letter can be found here (PDF file).
 
tjwenger said:
No level of big business "blogs" will help their cause. That being said, their pockets books will more than likely prevail.
Click to expand...

There are huge companies on either side of the debate. It's hard to call at this point...
 
keenan said:
There are huge companies on either side of the debate. It's hard to call at this point...
Click to expand...

What Big companies are on NN side? We thought Google was, but that seems less true everyday. I'm curious to know the big players for NN.
 
tjwenger said:
What Big companies are on NN side? We thought Google was, but that seems less true everyday. I'm curious to know the big players for NN.
Click to expand...
This.

I keep seeing the ISP heavyweights acting like they're being oppressed here. It's like the pot calling the snow "black".
 
tjwenger said:
What Big companies are on NN side? We thought Google was, but that seems less true everyday. I'm curious to know the big players for NN.
Click to expand...

Despite all the press about the Google/Verizon proposal, I don't think it's all bad, and certainly doesn't take Google off the radar. Many of the things people are up in arms about are, at least for the time being, practical realities and essentially required for any feasible net neutrality today, without completely overhauling the way our infrastructure works. It may not be the ideal compromise, but there does need to be some consideration made for wireless and other services that deliver more than just Internet access over their networks. Seems to me it's a pragmatic approach to actually come to a workable agreement instead of pushing for ideals that can't really work right now, and it obviously needs plenty of work and analysis yet. Or maybe I'm just giving Google too much credit.

As for who's for it, I guess I'm mistaken. Most companies I would expect to be for it haven't taken a clear stand. I thought I'd heard of support from the likes of Microsoft, Intel and Dell, but that seems shaky at best.
 
MS and Yahoo were supposed to be with us... but they might be more following google's lead, wherever google goes.
 
The sooner that ISP's realize that they are nothing more than regional dumb pipe providers the better. I don't want them controlling content or controlling how i get to any content i want. Just get the fuck out of my way, let me pay my bill to access the net as i see fit. How fucking hard is that for these people to understand?
 
Methadras said:
The sooner that ISP's realize that they are nothing more than regional dumb pipe providers the better. I don't want them controlling content or controlling how i get to any content i want. Just get the fuck out of my way, let me pay my bill to access the net as i see fit. How fucking hard is that for these people to understand?
Click to expand...

The problem pops up when the pipe providers are also content providers who want to leverage their pipes to maximize profits from content. The pipe providers who don't directly provide content still think they can make $$$ by selling priority to the highest bidder.

Did you forget that, as a consumer, you have no influence over the services these companies graciously allow you to purchase? Shut up and keep that wallet open.
 
I think what happened is that the writer tried too hard to be witty and brand FreePress as being religious in their zealotry, and it ended up falling flat on his face.

The writer did point out some contradictions in FreePress' stance on the issue, and I guess that's where his title for the post comes into play: Believing or following in a dogma for the dogma's sake leaves little room for compromise or change in one's position, even in the face of new information. Hank is saying that FreePress is painting themselves in a corner by taking a stand on any sort of packet prioritization. (He then goes on to talk about how they've at times gone back on their own statements)

As what happens too frequently, Hank points out where FreePress' arguments are flawed, but does little to address the issues FreePress has with AT&T.

Unfortunately, I don't see too much hope in breaking this log jam other than having some cooler heads prevail in the FCC and recommend some decent legislation to Congress. This fight has devolved into an "us vs them" argument, with little actual discussion or compromise on the technical aspects of just what net neutrality is.

At the end of the day, some technologies that have suddenly become bad words such as "packet prioritization" and "quality of service" will be used, because of the varying nature of the services provided. Where the problem lies is in the conflict of interest that exists when service providers are also involved in being content providers (with the desire to guarantee exceptional quality of their service, at the neglect of others) and the lure of 3rd party providers who have cash to burn.

As long as the argument is stuck at "for or against" and not actually addressing the conflicting wants and desires of the various parties, this issue is going nowhere fast.
 
jfreund said:
The problem pops up when the pipe providers are also content providers who want to leverage their pipes to maximize profits from content. The pipe providers who don't directly provide content still think they can make $$$ by selling priority to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...

This. This is the crux of the issue right here.
 
jfreund said:
The problem pops up when the pipe providers are also content providers who want to leverage their pipes to maximize profits from content. The pipe providers who don't directly provide content still think they can make $$$ by selling priority to the highest bidder.

Did you forget that, as a consumer, you have no influence over the services these companies graciously allow you to purchase? Shut up and keep that wallet open.
Click to expand...

Did you forget that, as a consumer, you can[/b[ have influence over the services these companies graciously allow you to purchase? Shut up and change ISPs when one of them wants to screw you. Competition is a pretty cool thing I hear...
 
Cyraxx said:
Did you forget that, as a consumer, you can[/b[ have influence over the services these companies graciously allow you to purchase? Shut up and change ISPs when one of them wants to screw you. Competition is a pretty cool thing I hear...
Click to expand...


LOL.
 
Cyraxx said:
Did you forget that, as a consumer, you can[/b[ have influence over the services these companies graciously allow you to purchase? Shut up and change ISPs when one of them wants to screw you. Competition is a pretty cool thing I hear...
Click to expand...


I don't know what it is like where you live, but most of us are stuck in monopoly or duopoly situations. There is simply no place else to go for anything faster than dial up for many of us short of moving to a different city.
 
GORANKAR said:
I don't know what it is like where you live, but most of us are stuck in monopoly or duopoly situations. There is simply no place else to go for anything faster than dial up for many of us short of moving to a different city.
Click to expand...

Amen. I can't get another cable provider (comcast rules my area with an iron fist) and I can't get a dish b/c of my condo association rules. Fios isn't available here yet either, so it's pretty much comcast or dial up........

I would LOVE to tell comcast to blow it out their ass, but I have no alternative...
 
lol_wut.jpg
 
I tried to read his blog, but I can't translate idiot to English on the fly. Can someone summarize... I'm sure it is "duhrr duur!", but I'd like to make sure.
 
Cyraxx said:
Did you forget that, as a consumer, you can[/b[ have influence over the services these companies graciously allow you to purchase? Shut up and change ISPs when one of them wants to screw you. Competition is a pretty cool thing I hear...
Click to expand...



yeah competition is pretty cool when you live in an area thats not held as a monopoly by 2 companies like i am.. the only providers i have are comcast and qwest.. living in California the only providers i had access to was comcast and AT&T.. so really you think changing providers is that easy and that competition is everywhere? welcome to AMERICA were we preach competition but make 0 attempt to create it..
 
jfreund said:
Did you forget that, as a consumer, you have no influence over the services these companies graciously allow you to purchase? Shut up and keep that wallet open.
Click to expand...

Do ISPs forget that, as American service providers, the infrastructure they so graciously sell access to was subsidized by the tax payer? Shut up and keep those pipes open.
 
I can say this. Once this law is passed allowing this. And it WILL be passed. I am going to go with the service that offers ZERO privatization. Even if it is slightly more expensive.

Because for users like me that will be a huge selling point.
 
His attempt to point out a logical flaw in the net neutrality debate almost works. Almost. His flaw is that he tries to insist that allowing you, as a consumer, to judge what you want to have priority reaching you is the same as some other company deciding that for you. He tries to draw this parallel by insisting that they have the same right to "prioritize" as you do but what he doesn't clearly indicate that in order for them to see a benefit to prioritizing of traffic their choice has to trump yours.

Effectively, he tries to equate you imposing priorities on your own self with someone else imposing priorities on you. It is a failed argument but he makes the attempt anyway. He tries, as others have noted, to make the companies seem like they're the victims because they can't buy their way into having better access to consumers against the consumer's will.
 
Grimlaking said:
I can say this. Once this law is passed allowing this. And it WILL be passed. I am going to go with the service that offers ZERO privatization. Even if it is slightly more expensive.

Because for users like me that will be a huge selling point.
Click to expand...

I am with you, I too would pay a premium to keep neutral service...

I do disagree though that we as a customer base will attract "Huge" selling points. It has always been and always be a "normal" consumer that will dictate these things. Normal consumers have NO clue what NN is or what could happen with out it. They don't really care either... "Can I get to facebook and msn? Then I am good"
 
Cyraxx said:
Did you forget that, as a consumer, you can[/b[ have influence over the services these companies graciously allow you to purchase? Shut up and change ISPs when one of them wants to screw you. Competition is a pretty cool thing I hear...
Click to expand...


Change to what? I have the choice of my current provider 8mbps cable or 1 mbps dsl. Lots of competition yea.
 
You should research the dish thing. A law was passed in the mid 90's, and updated a few times since to cover wireless and renters, that prevents associations from barring the use of Satellite Dishes.

IIRC the only gotcha would be if your home is declared an historic building/location.

Here's one reference:

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

jflail2 said:
Amen. I can't get another cable provider (comcast rules my area with an iron fist) and I can't get a dish b/c of my condo association rules. Fios isn't available here yet either, so it's pretty much comcast or dial up........

I would LOVE to tell comcast to blow it out their ass, but I have no alternative...
Click to expand...
 
Yes, both sides make good points. However, once you give up a freedom it's often hard to give it back. If you let companies start QoSing services, who know's where it will end up.
 
bacon said:
Change to what? I have the choice of my current provider 8mbps cable or 1 mbps dsl. Lots of competition yea.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should tell your local government to stop preventing others from competing.
 
tjwenger said:
What Big companies are on NN side? We thought Google was, but that seems less true everyday. I'm curious to know the big players for NN.
Click to expand...

None that I can see. Anyone big enough to be a significant force for NN is also big enough to get in early and cut their deals with the new Internet Overlords and move on.
 
Cyraxx said:
Did you forget that, as a consumer, you can[/b[ have influence over the services these companies graciously allow you to purchase? Shut up and change ISPs when one of them wants to screw you. Competition is a pretty cool thing I hear...
Click to expand...


actually no, been part of a monopoly all my broadband life, only 1 company controlling the lines with no other options.
 
jfreund said:
The problem pops up when the pipe providers are also content providers who want to leverage their pipes to maximize profits from content. The pipe providers who don't directly provide content still think they can make $$$ by selling priority to the highest bidder.

Did you forget that, as a consumer, you have no influence over the services these companies graciously allow you to purchase? Shut up and keep that wallet open.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, however, if you are an ISP and also a content provider, then at least net neutrality law should reflect that they must treat their content neutrally as well as any others for those that access the network via their entry points. In essence, as an isp, your content becomes neutral. If you want to charge more for that, fine, but the data that I use, store, or send isn't for their consumption and that data is neutral to any other network body.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top