I think there's a world market for maybe five computers - Thomas Watson, IBM
|
|
|
Skype tells the FCC to require net neutrality.
VOICE OVER IP AND CHAT OUTFIT Skype has been pressing its case in favour of net neutrality to the US Federal Communications Commision (FCC).
Skype, which is based on its own proprietary technology, depends on net neutrality to survive. If the telcos and some ISPs get their way, Skype punters will probably be identified as filesharers and get throttled to within an inch of their lives.
Skype told the FCC that net neutrality was "about growing the broadband ecosystem and preserving a borderless, open Internet" and that it would "promote investment, jobs and innovation."
It wants the commission to focus on preserving an open Internet and strongly supports the FCC's suggested framework pertaining to broadband and wireless networks and issues of network neutrality.
Skype claims that carriers have the ability to harm innovation in the real-time communications applications market, such as that made possible by Skype, either by blocking or more subtle forms of discrimination. Because these applications offer consumers additional choice and savings, they should not be delayed, obstructed or throttled by broadband access providers.
Skype said that the FCC should keep mobile broadband networks open much like fixed-line broadband networks, but it understood the need for some sort of network management when it comes to wireless networks. However it also wants the FCC to make sure that VoIP providers like itself are allowed to offer their services over all kinds of networks.
There is no reason why any network operator, including wireless network operators, need to block, throttle or degrade particular applications without regard to the network capacity such applications actually are consuming, Skype said.
It pointed out that not all video applications, or peer-to-peer or VoIP applications, consume the same amount of bandwidth or place the same demands on network capacity. Its own service optimises its software to adapt to network congestion and consumes very few network resources, it claimed.
There's more about this available here. µ
Share this:
Share
Jim Summers
you, sir, are either a complete idiot or work for the ISPs.
If you want to prioritise skype packets, over file downloads / torrents, you can do this YOUR end, either with a router than enables this, or using software on pc itself, very easy.
IF you let the ISP throttle, by your arguments, EVERYONES downloads are de prioritised over skype - not needed, and stupid, open to abuse, etc etc...
prick
If an ISP can discriminate based on traffic, they can prioritize Skype over less urgent traffic and improve the experience for Skype users. I saw a demonstration where a Skype VoIP call was unintelligible because of interference from a file download. When Skype was prioritized over the download, Skype became usable and the download was basically the same speed, for a win all around. Internet protocol recognition is a tool that can be used for good as well as evil; and a neutral internet is not necessarily the best internet, especially for real-time protocols like Skype.
"The vast majority of people will save huge $$$$"
Are your eyes naturally brown or is that because you are so full of sh1t?
You simply echo the mindless self serving banter of the major ISPs, and add absolutely nothing constructive OF YOUR OWN. Go get a bleepin' clue then come back and join the conversation.
P.S. you = sock puppet
Much as I hate BT give them their due.
Privatisation has meant that any pillock can dig up the road and pavement and BT cables almost on a whim and that, along with London being designed by idiots, makes it a lot more expensive.
It doesn't help that BT chucked its research into 2.4gbit fibre drivers that would have cost $5 in 1990...
If the telcos and cable companies except taxpayer money,bailouts,rebates,subsidies,no matter how, then its time the taxpayers get a share in the companies. I as a taxpayer have every right to go to a share holders meeting, and have some input, period.
That is the best analogy for net neutrality I have seen, mind if I stea... err I mean use it with permission elsewhere? :)
Pay no attention to this ISP shill that slinks among us, spreading his traitorous lies and propaganda. We will not debase ourselves by eating remains and feces of the bandwidth that *ISPs* decide is reserved for the "premium" service.
Nor shall we be deceived by those claiming that net neutrality allows people to "overuse" bandwidth for P2P or other services, causing network congestion, and reducing overall QoS. The problem does not lie in "overuse" of bandwidth, but instead *overselling* of bandwidth by the ISPs. Rather than forcing ISPs to expand their capacity to meet the advertised quality of service we pay for, "net discrimination" will simply give ISPs an excuse to syphon off resources to their more favored services.
The fact that ISPs can oversell their bandwidth shows that they are already capable of managing network resources without the need for fundamentally destroying the basis of the Internet. Rate plans, metering, and other policies are all at the ISP's disposal. If people need higher QoS they can pay more for dedicated lines, but don't think that allowing your ISP to arbitrate what is, and what is not "good" use of *your* paid-for bandwidth is going to improve your QoS, because it will not.
Internet is a huge money machine for these cartels (BT and Verizon). They simply don't want to invest till they squeeze the last drop out of their infrastructure. Never mind the billions they make. It's all about their quarterly profits and shareholders.
So, file shares, VoIPs, online streams, etc. require them to actually invest back some of the money they take from us and that is the main reason those companies are against NN.
Imagine what would be if UK residents were to share buildings like they share their ISP's infrastructure. They'd be stuffed more than some chinese neighborhoods outside Hong Kong!
No, I don't think it is the users who are responsible for the traffic congestion. Look at Tokio - it's bigger than London (in square miles), yet they manage to have optic lanes to each house at a decent price and no one is being ever limited.
About telcos, UK is still in 20th century and I think government is not helping it at all.
The only time QoS is needed is in a highly congested network. If the network is not congested the equipment will receive a packet and send the packet on as fast as it can. Only when there is congestion does it need or even care about QoS.
If the network is congested, then it needs to be upgraded. Simple as that. They claim regulations will hamper innovation and investment and yet in 1996 when regulations were put in place both of those thigns increased. That is until the lobbying leeches started getting the Telecom Act of 1996 tore apart. As it was tore apart both innovation and investment decreased. That is a verifiable fact that can be researched and confirmed using their own public filings as required by law.
They also think they should be able to charge extra for "valuable" data from companies making lots of money.
It would be like charging more to fuel up a truck full of TVs then a truck full of turnips. They are making money so the networks should get a cut beyond what they pay in data charges.
Steve - companies like ATT and Verizon want to sell you internet access AND a landline phone. They want to prevent people from using Skype so they can force people to get a landline instead. The do this by 'throttling' bandwidth to computers running Skype or similar applications.
In other words, it's an antitrust issue, I don't see how the telcos aren't being hammered for this.
Pay as you go is not in conflict with NN. Its about access to bandwidth... and not allowing the telecoms to prioritize the net traffic to suit there needs even though everyone is paying for service. AT&T would not be allowed to make there Voip use as much bandwith as it needs while only allowing Skype to get a max of 10kb/s...
If you the consumer pay for 5Mb/s you should be able to get it from what ever service you want... and not be restricted to what the telecoms think is okay.
That is the heart. By making "all bits equal", Skype won't have to pay extra for QoS. Personally, I would rather drop the All-You0Can-Eat data models and go to a pay for what you use model that may include QoS.
The vast majority of people will save huge $$$$.