• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality

Mithros said:
It is accurate. Obviously if a consumer pays for twice the bandwidth they can get twice the number of packets. I figured that was self evident.

We're talking about packets coming INTO the ISP from the internet at large. Net Neutrality means that the ISP is not allowed to prioritized those packets.


Comcast can't say, oh.. hi competitor's movie service packet. I think I'll lose every 10th one of you.
Click to expand...

My point being if they can't prioritize them, they can't restrict them either.
 
Mithros said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE

Everyone pays for bandwidth. Content providers pay for bandwidth, content consumers pay for bandwidth, ISPs pay for bandwidth. If someone doesn't have enough, they buy more. That's the way the internet has worked, that's the way it should work.

Net neutrality is only dealing with the small part of the internet which connects you to the ISP. All of the rest of the internet will continue to function exactly the same way because it has to, it's a cooperative distributed network. Do you want ISPs to tell you how you can use your bandwidth? Or should we let the free market decide?
Click to expand...

If you watch a 2 hour NetFlix movie at 1080p then you stream about 8mb/s for that period of time. So to be able to stream NetFlix and also do other things on the net at the same time you buy a 10mb internet connection to accommodate your peak usage.

Your actual consumption over the course of the day averages one twelfth that amount, so what you are ACTUALLY paying for in old school locked bandwidth terms is 830kps. If you actually paid for full-time locked internet pipe capable of streaming NetFlix you would pay many times what you pay now. If you paid the same amount for a locked 830kps then good luck streaming NetFlix.
 
Last edited:
Mithros said:
I'm not sure you understand what net neutrality actually is. Net Neutrality means that ISPs aren't allowed to do packet prioritization.
Click to expand...
Interesting.
You quote me saying exactly what it is "(for pay packet prioritization)", then go on to say you are not sure I understand what net neutrality actually is.
Strange to say the least.
 
Samhain said:
My point being if they can't prioritize them, they can't restrict them either.
Click to expand...
Most of the internet trunks are still ATM and subject to ATM QOS.
ATM QoS Classes
Decades ago when I was in School ATM had 5 classes, it looks like that is down to 4 now.
Some traffic actually has a need for timely delivery, like voice traffic.
You can look at a really noisy video image, but if the sound is messed up,
it is unwatchable.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I am not sure where they differ. Moreover, I don't know of a single IT professional that opposes Net Neutrality. It all falls under existing law unless the law is changed. The 1996 Telco Act specifically.
Click to expand...

I'm for health care reform... I am not for Obamacare and the Liberals idea of health care reform.

I am also for Net Neutrality... However, I am not for the Liberals attempt to hijack the term "Net Neutrality" to empower unelected officials to manipulate winners and losers. IMO, the President's proposal opens the door to pricing, content, and bandwidth manipulation over time. Do we want to go down yet another slippery slope?

We should all be for Net Neutrality... We must now decide who advocates the best plan for the future. Once again, when ever ANY politician speaks... Follow the money!


Net-Neutrality-lobbying-lllustrator_0.jpg
 
jmotivator said:
If you watch a 2 hour NetFlix movie at 1080p then you stream about 8mb/s for that period of time. So to be able to stream NetFlix and also do other things on the net at the same time you buy a 10mb internet connection to accommodate your peak usage.

Your actual consumption over the course of the day averages one twelfth that amount, so what you are ACTUALLY paying for in old school locked bandwidth terms is 830kps. If you actually paid for full-time locked internet pipe capable of streaming NetFlix you would pay many times what you pay now. If you paid the same amount for a locked 830kps then good luck streaming NetFlix.
Click to expand...

As an example of this, the average AT&T broadband user consumes about 35GB of data per month, which translates to an average bandwidth usage of 13.5 kps, and the cap on AT&T DSL service (150gb total/month) equates to a 56kps modem running continuously for a month. QoS technology allows the end user to consume that in big chunks quickly with the assumption they won't be using that max bandwidth continuously.
 
Excon said:
:doh
What an absurd statement.
No it wasn't.


That is called a Government overreach, which is an abuse of power.


:naughty
Nice spin, but no; They treated them as a "common carrier" when the Law specifically forbade doing so.


I guess you do not understand that a Judge's dicta means absolutely nothing and has no affect. :shrug:


And don't get confused like others have as to any position I, Cruz or anyone else may have by opposing classifying them as Utilities.
Opposition to classifying them as Utilities does not mean one is opposed to NN.
Click to expand...
Why all of the distraction? If you agree with the concept of net neutrality, then why aren't you on board with some alternate means of achieving it?

There's no reason why ISPs have to be classified as utilities. Congress could also pass a new category of provider for ISPs which enforces net neutrality but otherwise maintains a hands-off approach to regulation. You'd have broad support from Silicon Valley and the tech industry and it would be the right way to handle it. Would you support that?
 
jmotivator said:
If you watch a 2 hour NetFlix movie at 1080p then you stream about 8mb/s for that period of time. So to be able to stream NetFlix and also do other things on the net at the same time you buy a 10mb internet connection to accommodate your peak usage.

Your actual consumption over the course of the day averages one twelfth that amount, so what you are ACTUALLY paying for in old school locked bandwidth terms is 830kps. If you actually paid for full-time locked internet pipe capable of streaming NetFlix you would pay many times what you pay now. If you paid the same amount for a locked 830kps then good luck streaming NetFlix.
Click to expand...

This is nonsensical.

A home user is paying for tier 3 service. You don't have any dedicated bandwidth, but rather you are sharing your connection with other people on the same segment (basically your neighborhood), and you are paying less because of that. Moreover, you are not taking into account IP Multicasting and variability in streaming bandwidth (you will very rarely ever get 1080p for the entirety of a movie). An ISP provision's bandwidth using the same model as any other IP network.
 
jmotivator said:
As an example of this, the average AT&T broadband user consumes about 35GB of data per month, which translates to an average bandwidth usage of 13.5 kps, and the cap on AT&T DSL service (150gb total/month) equates to a 56kps modem running continuously for a month. QoS technology allows the end user to consume that in big chunks quickly with the assumption they won't be using that max bandwidth continuously.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with QoS. QoS means I tag a packet at either the layer 2 or layer 7 level and prioritize that packet above other packets. For example, on a corporate network I would create a QoS class for voip traffic (IP Phone System) and prioritize those packets over other traffic that isn't so sensitive to latency.
 
jmotivator said:
If you watch a 2 hour NetFlix movie at 1080p then you stream about 8mb/s for that period of time. So to be able to stream NetFlix and also do other things on the net at the same time you buy a 10mb internet connection to accommodate your peak usage.

Your actual consumption over the course of the day averages one twelfth that amount, so what you are ACTUALLY paying for in old school locked bandwidth terms is 830kps. If you actually paid for full-time locked internet pipe capable of streaming NetFlix you would pay many times what you pay now. If you paid the same amount for a locked 830kps then good luck streaming NetFlix.
Click to expand...

Again, you're missing the point. You're paying for that bandwidth. If you watch Netflix, or Hulu, or Amazon Prime, or host a website.. it doesn't matter. All of those packets should be treated the same. How an ISP handles peak vs average bandwidth is entirely up to the agreement between you and the ISP. An ISP can throttle it's biggest data users without violating net neutrality.

What we're talking about is throttling down one provider like Hulu, but throttling up another provider like NetFlix. And all of the traffic is travelling over the same exact network.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
That has nothing to do with QoS. QoS means I tag a packet at either the layer 2 or layer 7 level and prioritize that packet above other packets. For example, on a corporate network I would create a QoS class for voip traffic (IP Phone System) and prioritize those packets over other traffic that isn't so sensitive to latency.
Click to expand...


Internet is "best effort".
 
Samhain said:
My point being if they can't prioritize them, they can't restrict them either.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I think that we were saying the same thing.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Internet is "best effort".
Click to expand...

Not hardly. CoS and Traffic Shaping is widely used by all carriers. If they didn't utilize CoS and some Layer 7 inspection, it would be extremely easy to take down any ISP with any coordinated DoS attack.
 
Mithros said:
Again, you're missing the point. You're paying for that bandwidth. If you watch Netflix, or Hulu, or Amazon Prime, or host a website.. it doesn't matter. All of those packets should be treated the same. How an ISP handles peak vs average bandwidth is entirely up to the agreement between you and the ISP. An ISP can throttle it's biggest data users without violating net neutrality.

What we're talking about is throttling down one provider like Hulu, but throttling up another provider like NetFlix. And all of the traffic is travelling over the same exact network.
Click to expand...

The only thing I would add to this is that an ISP would utilize some traffic shaping and CoS to ensure that no one user on a segment could utilize all the available bandwidth on that segment. For example:

A segment has 100 megs of bandwidth dedicated to it. End Users on that segment have connections ranging from 3 to 20 megs of bandwidth each. There are 30 end users on that segment. If 4 of those end users with 20 megs of bandwidth started saturating their connections at the same time, the ISP would almost certainly have a traffic shaping policy that throttled them back sufficiently to ensure other end users have sufficient bandwidth.

Of course that is all entirely possible with Net Neutrality.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
I for one... can't wait until we get rid of this pesky net neutrality.


Imagine the future!

net.neutrality.chart.jpg
Click to expand...
That is hyperbole.
Nothing but exaggeration to get idiots to support previous bad legislation.
 
BringIt said:
I'm for health care reform... I am not for Obamacare and the Liberals idea of health care reform.

I am also for Net Neutrality... However, I am not for the Liberals attempt to hijack the term "Net Neutrality" to empower unelected officials to manipulate winners and losers. IMO, the President's proposal opens the door to pricing, content, and bandwidth manipulation over time. Do we want to go down yet another slippery slope?

We should all be for Net Neutrality... We must now decide who advocates the best plan for the future. Once again, when ever ANY politician speaks... Follow the money!


View attachment 67176074
Click to expand...


What do you think those ISPs want? They don't want Net Neutrality, thus the huge amount of money they are spending to fight it.
 
tacomancer said:
Umm did he really just use a smart phone to compare against a regular phone and say the telephone industry was frozen in place?
Click to expand...

facepalm.jpg


Why don't you read what Cruz said and keep it in context of regulating it like a Utility (as Obama wants) like the telephone services were.
Then maybe you will understand the point he was trying to make.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Not hardly. CoS and Traffic Shaping is widely used by all carriers. If they didn't utilize CoS and some Layer 7 inspection, it would be extremely easy to take down any ISP with any coordinated DoS attack.
Click to expand...

but isn't it interdependent and not completely in ones control once it passes the last native router on the isp?
 
Excon said:
That is hyperbole.
Nothing but exaggeration to get idiots to support previous bad legislation.
Click to expand...


Explain how it would NOT happen in the USA with the current ISP structure we have--- if we legalize the ability to prioritize ...
 
SlevinKelevra said:
Explain how it would NOT happen in the USA with the current ISP structure we have--- if we legalize the ability to prioritize ...
Click to expand...
:doh
I do not need to explain how that was an exaggeration.
Hell it isn't even in-line with the restriction of Netflix and Comcast that was being misrepresented.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
but isn't it interdependent and not completely in ones control once it passes the last native router on the isp?
Click to expand...

Yes, but the problem with not having some sort of regulation enforcing the concept of net neutrality is that any carrier could then prioritize their content over others.

Not much involved in doing this:

class class1


bandwidth 2000


queue-limit 40





class class-default


fair-queue 16


queue-limit 20
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Yes, but the problem with not having some sort of regulation enforcing the concept of net neutrality is that any carrier could then prioritize their content over others.

Not much involved in doing this:

class class1


bandwidth 2000


queue-limit 40





class class-default


fair-queue 16


queue-limit 20
Click to expand...


of course.

That said, I am for actual net neutrality, not the democrats turning into a utility under the guise of net neutrality. Do you see the difference ?
 
Excon said:
facepalm.jpg


Why don't you read what Cruz said and keep it in context of regulating it like a Utility (as Obama wants) like the telephone services were.
Then maybe you will understand the point he was trying to make.
Click to expand...
Cruz is free to propose legislation that includes a new classification of carrier: ISPs. In this way we could ensure Net Neutrality and maintain a hands off regulatory approach. In fact, that's why we have congress. Legislators legislate, it's their job.

Here's a good test. If anyone in congress on either party rails against the way something is being done without proposing any alternate legislation, then you can be assured that they're more interested in playing politics than creating solutions.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
of course.

That said, I am for actual net neutrality, not the democrats turning into a utility under the guise of net neutrality. Do you see the difference ?
Click to expand...

I see the difference, but net neutrality is a hell of a lot closer to what Al Franken is proposing than what Ted Cruz is proposing. That all said I am very leery of a bunch of lawyers writing regulations concerning the internet when they obviously don't know what they are talking about (ie: Ted Cruz).

This is exemplified by some of the arguments from ignorance on display in this thread. A lot of people seem to know the buzzwords without knowing what they actually mean. That's why I said earlier if you don't work as a Systems or Network Engineer / Admin, chances are you don't know what you are talking about in regards to net neutrality.

Hell, if someone did, then why are they not working in IT then as it almost certainly pays more than their job probably does. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom