No, this isn't about dancing cat videos. This is about your right to watch dancing cat videos unimpeded, and for that traffic to not be treated any better or worse than my traffic.

Well this is no longer about distributed computing than now is it? Do you agree that email and such will feel no effect if Netflix gets a fast lane?

It's about all bits on the internet, including distributed computing. [Edited to add] It's also about the fact that Netflix already pays an ISP for their access to the internet, so they shouldn't have to pay the likes of Comcast for access to consumers that wish to purchase Netflix's services.

Content provider <--> ISP <--> backbone <--> ISP <--> Consumer

or sometimes depending on pathways:

Content provider <--> ISP <--> Consumer

Netflix pays an ISP to access the internet (usually at a higher rate for availability and guaranteed service contracts). Consumers pay an ISP to access content such as Netflix, Youtube, or Google Apps. Net neutrality isn't about preventing Comcast from offering faster lanes to streaming videos. Net neutrality is about making sure all bits are treated the same, no matter the source or destination.

At first they charged more for dancing cat videos, but I did not speak up as I did not watch them.
Then they charged more for Cloud services, but I did not speak up as I do not use Cloud services.
Then they charged more for Software as a Service (SaaS), but I did not speak up because I do not use SaaS.
Then they wanted to charge more for distributed computing, and I wanted to speak up but was unheard because of all the precedence set before me.

You thought breaking up the Bell System was a good idea didn't you?

The Bell System has no bearing on the net neutrality discussion. If that is the closest thing you can find for comparison, your view is very outdated by about 30 years.

Yes. I want to play. First, display to me that you understand the peering issue at hand.

I am very much in favor of net neutrality. But what does net neutrality mean to you and how do you define it before we continue.

Net neutrality means Netflix's traffic will be treated the same as any other traffic. Peering is swapping bandwidth instead of money.

The sad fact is the people would rather have smooth dancing cat videos above all else and that requires a fast lane or collocation.

This is all about dancing cat videos.

while wireless routers

Keep wireless out of the equation, there is not enough bandwidth to make a difference. Anyway the same players controll that too.

Oh boy, if I have to start worrying about this, I'm lost...:)

Exactly.It's a very boring technical topic.

yes that is all true but decentralizing the topology of the internet does not require changing the isp's but merely adding to them.
with the added advantage that more paths means a faster network no high speed backbone needed.

You are talking last mile. How do you do that? Don't get all communist on me now.

===================================================================
first net neutrality is nice and i am all for that.

second netflixs traffic should atleast be treated equal but there are protocols

out there that the ieee have proposed that would bundle video streams so that

much less duplication would be required local caching at the ip could reduce

this load further.so the ip's could if they wish unload the backbone of much trafic.

three the fast need only be local for fast cat videos this is not a function

of a fast backbone but of a smart network.

four wireless routers and bandwidth yes the standard frequencies can be crowded
and the fcc does control continuous broadcast. but all broadcasts that are under 1/10 of a second and under 10kw are unregulated
micro cel and burst transmission could do a lot to provide an alternative to the wire, broadband wireless is already out there as well as satellite data so there is already some competition but there needs to be much more.

five i am not just talking about the last mile i am talking about the entire internet.
and the idea is to provide a redundant but separate path for information

---

You thought breaking up the Bell System was a good idea didn't you?

The Bell System has no bearing on the net neutrality discussion. If that is the closest thing you can find for comparison, your view is very outdated by about 30 years.

That's what I thought. You got what you wanted and yet you weep. I heard your song and dance before. How's that free long distance form MCI working out for you?

---

second netflixs traffic should atleast be treated equal but there are protocols out there that the ieee have proposed that would bundle video streams so that much less duplication would be required local caching at the ip could reduce this load further.so the ip's could if they wish unload the backbone of much trafic.

Netflix already had a program exactly like this. This program, unfortunately, was optional, and Comcast is holding all the cards (access to consumers). Comcast didn't want Netflix's caching servers on their networks but instead demanded that Netflix pay for bandwidth that consumers use - consumers that paid for that bandwidth already.

three the fast need only be local for fast cat videos this is not a function of a fast backbone but of a smart network.

four wireless routers and bandwidth yes the standard frequencies can be crowded
and the fcc does control continuous broadcast. but all broadcasts that are under 1/10 of a second and under 10kw are unregulated
micro cel and burst transmission could do a lot to provide an alternative to the wire, broadband wireless is already out there as well as satellite data so there is already some competition but there needs to be much more.

five i am not just talking about the last mile i am talking about the entire internet.

The rest of this is just idealism gone wrong. All those wireless routers and frequencies still have to make it back and fourth from source to destination. Someone has to manage this complex network of wireless routers and pay for upkeep.

You're not going to get around the ISP problem unless you are proposing a government controlled internet. I do not believe that solution would be ideal given your concerns about the NSA.

You thought breaking up the Bell System was a good idea didn't you?

The Bell System has no bearing on the net neutrality discussion. If that is the closest thing you can find for comparison, your view is very outdated by about 30 years.

That's what I thought. You got what you wanted and yet you weep. I heard your song and dance before. How's that free long distance form MCI working out for you?

I'm sorry, how did you get that out of my response? More importantly, how is this on topic?

The rest of this is just idealism gone wrong. All those wireless routers and frequencies still have to make it back and fourth from source to destination. Someone has to manage this complex network of wireless routers and pay for upkeep.

You're not going to get around the ISP problem unless you are proposing a government controlled internet. I do not believe that solution would be idea given your concerns about the NSA.
===============================================================
actually there are likely 3 or more providers of broadband wireless
+bell for dsl +hughes satellite data in addition to comcast and what i proposed
a decentralized network maintained and paid for by the people that use it.
in a decentralized network each machine is a node and would connect to any machines it could as would they.management and maintenance in the conventional cents are not necessary as the density of connected machines goes up the number of paths that communication can travel across goes up and speed goes up no backbone to manage.
those in weak network areas would obviously benefit from increasing connectivity
also bear in mind this is on top of pay for isp's like comcast.
so if nothing else is cheaper comcast is still there.

---

I'm sorry, how did you get that out of my response? More importantly, how is this on topic?

I thought the topic was the loss of net neutrality would affect distributive computing. I say no, a fast lane will not slow down low bandwidth uses like this supposed forum or email. Just reading the posts on the main board shows they don't have a clue what this is about. I'm just wondering why they are making a big deal about this.

You have these grand ideas of how to make what is working fine better. Much as you did when MCI was poring the Kool-Aid. The best we can hope for is they leave things as they are and let the market work it out.

As for the "cloud", only a fool would put all of that information in the hands and control of others. Oh wait they love Google. Isn't Google Fiber going to be the savior of the Internet anyway?

---

actually there are likely 3 or more providers of broadband wireless
+bell for dsl +hughes satellite data in addition to comcast and what i proposed
a decentralized network maintained and paid for by the people that use it. in a decentralized network each machine is a node and would connect to any machines it could as would they.

That's what we have now. People pay those same companies you listed to provide them with access to an internetwork of computers. Those companies use the money people pay them to manage and maintain this internetwork of computers so they can access things and each other.

management and maintenance in the conventional cents are not necessary as the density of connected machines goes up the number of paths that communication can travel across goes up and speed goes up no backbone to manage.
those in weak network areas would obviously benefit from increasing connectivity
also bear in mind thi is on top of pay for isp's like comcast.
so if nothing else is cheaper comcast is still there.

Ummm.... maintenance in the general sense? Not necessary? You don't know anything about network design, do you? All networks need maintenance, and the more nodes the more it costs to maintain them. Again, this is nothing more than idealism gone extreme.

yes net neutrality is a good thing and yes comcast needs to be spanked

for their behaviour.so what do you suggest we do when comcast pay's off enough

politicians to finally get its way, they have been trying to pull this stuff for

almost a decade and have lost each and every time yet they still here and trying

to do the same thing again.

as to privacy if you are on the internet you already lost that. how much more can a cloud lose you.

---

All I know, is through My Ro ku, Net flix is still Throt tled at 4 in the morning. H BO Go is almost instant and Am a zon Pr ime is almost instant.

Got Sp eed ?

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

I'm sorry, how did you get that out of my response? More importantly, how is this on topic?

I thought the topic was the loss of net neutrality would affect distributive computing.

And Bell Systems has what to do with that?

I say no, a fast lane will not slow down low bandwidth uses like this supposed forum or email. Just reading the posts on the main board shows they don't have a clue what this is about. I'm just wondering why they are making a big deal about this.

This isn't about internet fast lanes. Again, such a statement shows that you display a complete lack of understanding of the issue at hand. The rest of this paragraph is then based upon a logical fallacy based upon your own agenda and ignorance.

And this still has nothing to do with the Bell System.

You have these grand ideas of how to make what is working fine better. Much as you did when MCI was poring the Kool-Aid. The best we can hope for is they leave things as they are and let the market work it out.

Net neutrality is about keeping the existing peering system in place and preventing companies from double-dipping or preventing access. I want to preserve the way things are currently by ensuring net neutrality continues.

As for the "cloud", only a fool would put all of that information in the hands and control of others. Oh wait they love Google. Isn't Google Fiber going to be the savior of the Internet anyway?

Net neutrality is about ensuring that those who want to use the cloud can do so without worrying that the bits are treated the same.

yes net neutrality is a good thing and yes comcast needs to be spanked for their behaviour.so what do you suggest we do when comcast pay's off enough
politicians to finally get its way, they have been trying to pull this stuff for almost a decade and have lost each and every time yet they still here and trying to do the same thing again.

I propose that the internet belongs to everyone, and to make sure that all bits are treated equally, we tell the FCC that we want net neutrality, even if that means reclassifying ISPs are common carriers.

yes net neutrality is a good thing and yes comcast needs to be spanked

for their behaviour.so what do you suggest we do when comcast pay's off enough

politicians to finally get its way, they have been trying to pull this stuff for

almost a decade and have lost each and every time yet they still here and trying

to do the same thing again.

as to privacy if you are on the internet you already lost that. how much more can a cloud lose you.

Comcast got approval to buy NBC. They have the FCC in their pocket. A content producer must never be a content provider, that is a much bigger issue than net neutrality IMHO.

BTW are you using a cellphone to post? I ask because of your lack of capitalization makes your posts difficult to read. Perhaps you can get some capital letters form that poster who capitalizes every other letter.

---

in a decentralized network each machine would be maintained by its owner

and you may be right i may be dreaming, as to the rest the whole point of a decentralized network is to make all those things you site as needed and having to be payed for local to your machine and the machine's around it.

As too the caps this is more my dyslexic typing I will try to watch the draim bramage.

---

All I know, is through My Ro ku, Net flix is still Throt tled at 4 in the morning. H BO Go is almost instant and Am a zon Pr ime is almost instant.

Got Sp eed ?

' '

Indeed. Net neutrality is not about preventing Comcast or any other ISP from offering different internet speeds. It is simply about making sure that Netflix's bits are given the same treatment as your HBO Go and Amazon Prime's bits. All content treated equal, even if at different speeds the consumer is willing to pay for.

Did you do this perfect illustration on purpose? :-)

in a decentralized network each machine would be maintained by its owner

Unless you run your own loop to other computers you need an ISP.

I propose that the internet belongs to everyone, and to make sure that all bits are treated equally, we tell the FCC that we want net neutrality, even if that means reclassifying ISPs are common carriers.

I agree. I would go farther and make one regulated monopoly open to all.

---

Comcast got approval to buy NBC. They have the FCC in their pocket. A content producer must never be a content provider, that is a much bigger issue than net neutrality IMHO.

No, net neutrality is far more important. As Dullnando illustrated, he pays for Netflix, HBO Go and Amazon Prime. Netflix is throttled while the others work perfectly fine. Netflix isn't being treated fairly. That's the issue of net neutrality in a nutshell.

I propose that the internet belongs to everyone, and to make sure that all bits are treated equally, we tell the FCC that we want net neutrality, even if that means reclassifying ISPs are common carriers.

I agree. I would go farther and make one regulated monopoly open to all.

You want a regulated monopoly? Isn't that socialism espoused by communist ideals?

Comcast got approval to buy NBC. They have the FCC in their pocket. A content producer must never be a content provider, that is a much bigger issue than net neutrality IMHO.

No, net neutrality is far more important. As Dullnando illustrated, he pays for Netflix, HBO Go and Amazon Prime. Netflix is throttled while the others work perfectly fine. Netflix isn't being treated fairly. That's the issue of net neutrality in a nutshell.

I'm for refusing to allow an ISP to get IP numbers unless it treats all packets equally. Cut them off from the rest of the world. Of course they know their customers would flay them so they would. Perhaps the way to make sure of net neutrality is at the international level. Sorry Verizon, you throttle, so no IP numbers for you (or your customers).

Ed- Nice to see Ozz back with a name ;)

---

Comcast got approval to buy NBC. They have the FCC in their pocket. A content producer must never be a content provider, that is a much bigger issue than net neutrality IMHO.

As Dullnando illustrated, he pays for Netflix, HBO Go and Amazon Prime. Netflix is throttled while the others work perfectly fine. Netflix isn't being treated fairly. That's the issue of net neutrality in a nutshell.

It was proven that it was Netflix that couldn't deliver not throttling by ISP. The only thing Comcast throttled was P2P and they go caught.

You want a regulated monopoly? Isn't that socialism espoused by communist ideals?

No that was the Bell System, the greatest phone company the world had ever known. They were the first to hear the big bang, in New Jersey BTW.

So sad, from Nobel Prizes to hustling dancing cat videos.

All I know, is through My Ro ku, Net flix is still Throt tled at 4 in the morning. H BO Go is almost instant and Am a zon Pr ime is almost instant.

Got Sp eed ?

' '

You do love your dancing cat videos don't you?

---