network neutrality

[rynando]

You do realize the technology that is a "Torrent" was originally developed for business to send LARGE files very quickly and with much more security.

So if you regulate "torrents" as a whole, you effectively bottleneck business.

LOL, please. "Business" torrents . . .

Torrents are disruptive to networks (in a variety of ways) which is why ISPs hate them.

R

[artherd]

I hope not.

I have seen some of the proposed rates for websites, I work for a company that sells several million dollars a year in product, we can't afford it. I doubt the CGF draws in enough donations to cover these new expenses plus the continued Gun Lobby efforts.

Don't underestimate the connections those behind CGN/CGF have...

That said, your points are entirely valid otherwise - pay-for content delivery could easily be the death of small business on the 'net.

[Corbin Dallas]

LOL, please. "Business" torrents . . .

Torrents are disruptive to networks (in a variety of ways) which is why ISPs hate them.

R

Yes, business torrents.

I'll bet you have never attempted to transfer a 50TB file over an OC line from the main server site to an offsite backup warehouse. Over conventional methods, this would take DAYS to complete instead of hours. Not to mention 50TB is nothing when your server farm consists of 100 1.44PB storage blade racks.

So, LOL all you want. The torrent technology was originally designed to send very large files in designated chunks from a variety of locations.

I don't care what IS or IS NOT disruptive to ISP networks. 10 years ago nearly everything was done by dial-up, and the ISPs complained then. Not enough phone lines, too many people attempting to dial in and OMG, DOWLOADING FILES??? NO WAY!!!

So, back to your x86 PC my friend. As it was once said, who would EVER need more than 128MB of ram???? RIDICULOUS!!!!

[artherd]

suck my fiber!

[Can'thavenuthingood]

I have a problem with Government regulating anything. It might start out all sweet and rosy but it all depends on the bureaucrat(s) running it.

The intent may be just the thing but its all the little gotcha's in fine print and behind the scene that later requires more regulations be developed to level the field.

All this ought to be left up to the free market forces, the competition for business and profits is fertile ground for innovation and invention. The social networking of Facebook and Twitter I'm sure eats up bandwidth but I'm certain the percentage of business usage increase's daily. Kinda like the golf course and business.

Keep the regulators out of it, they will only muck it up.

Vick

[odysseus]

I'll bet you have never attempted to transfer a 50TB file over an OC line from the main server site to an offsite backup warehouse. Over conventional methods, this would take DAYS to complete instead of hours. Not to mention 50TB is nothing when your server farm consists of 100 1.44PB storage blade racks.

Most people haven't, and don't run fat OC directly to off site. But this sparked my curiosity (this is aside the discussion you are having with rynando), you are doing a single 50TB file? So one large contagious 50TB file? What is that? Are you running that off FC SAN? And also torrents need multi-node copies for faster distribution, and the advantage is of course helping across heterogeneous networks - I am curious just what and how you are using p2p for this?

[pmrtruck]

Any governmental intervention, no matter how well intentioned, is difficult to move away from later down the road.

Business will sort it out if they get a chance to...

I can't help notice, how many people in this thread are FOR this governmental control.
Are they the same people who piss and moan at other governmental control?
What makes you folks believe this new set of laws will be any better than any other law which is being constructed as I write this?

I could be wrong, o.k. but lately, the way bad bills are being attached to good bills; I want congress to take a break from writing ANY bills until they slow down and check our wallets. They're empty and then some. This bill maybe about one thing and a complete different package could come to life from it.

Over the past several years, this governmental intervention has ratcheted up quickly, and not very assuredly. I don't want any more governmental controls, at this time.

We just can't afford their brand of help.

[bbguns44]

"Business will sort it out if they get a chance to..."

No way. Big business, finance, oil, health, etc., is insatiable when it comes
to sucking money out of your pocket. There is no level playing field. There
are so many barriers to entry by new competitors that the basic assumption
of regulation via competition is no longer true. Democracy no longer works.

[7x57]

No one has yet connected certain facts. One is that the net is the second major avenue of the non-monopoly non-dinosaur media that this administration regards as a bunch of rebel scum. Nor that the same party, at least, has advocated partisan censorship of the first major avenue, AM radio, in the name of "Fairness," establishing a desire for political censorship. Nor that they have demonized any dissent at all as being beyond the pale, whatever pale they can find. Believing the Constitution is racist. Believing in natural Rights is selfish and thievish. When is censorship not censorship? When it only aims at content "beyond the pale," of course.

The problem is, whose pale?

So far as I can tell, the greatest benefit to the government of a "net neutrality" bill is that it establishes a new power to regulate, "for our own good," something the government regards as dangerous. It does so in the proximity to a demonstrated a desire to politically censor a similar medium. I don't think it takes a great deal of cleverness to connect those dots.

Those issues need addressing in any defense of "net neutrality." Neutrality indeed--but whose neutrality?

7x57

[Corbin Dallas]

Most people haven't, and don't run fat OC directly to off site. But this sparked my curiosity (this is aside the discussion you are having with rynando), you are doing a single 50TB file? So one large contagious 50TB file? What is that? Are you running that off FC SAN? And also torrents need multi-node copies for faster distribution, and the advantage is of course helping across heterogeneous networks - I am curious just what and how you are using p2p for this?

Actually, from what I know, the file is in the 100+TB size and the site has a dedicated OC12 line. The system is basically a giant RAID array (yes, FC SAN). They don't tell me all the details but I know we sent them 100 1.44PB storage racks. Each rack has 6-12 Compute or Head Nodes and 30-36 12-24TB storage blades per side (2x per rack)

They backup to another location and use a form of P2P to transfer the file.

[pmrtruck]

"Business will sort it out if they get a chance to..."

No way. Big business, finance, oil, health, etc., is insatiable when it comes
to sucking money out of your pocket. There is no level playing field. There
are so many barriers to entry by new competitors that the basic assumption
of regulation via competition is no longer true. Democracy no longer works.

The fact that barriers are to blame and that a Democratic Republic no longer works is a bit of a stretch.
Most of the barriers come from governmental regulations. This is not what is supposed to be. Nor are political action groups or whatever...this country has failed at the political level ONLY!

[JimmyD]

net neutrality is more than just P2P, why should the ISPs charge more for gaming or VOIP or streaming video over the same internet connection? What if your phone company charges you more if you spoke another language other than English over your line? Speaking in a different language doesn't cost them any more bandwidth than transmitting English. doing so is simply nickel and dimeing!

Bandwidth caps (which is fine by me) does not discriminate data and is similar to paying for a fixed number of minutes on your cell phone.

IDEALLY, there would be another company for you to take your business to if you don't like data discrimination practices of your ISP. Realistically this is not the case.

[turinreza]

fcc rules today

[Someoneelseok]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...neutrality-act - July 2006

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...-to-neutrality - October 2009

[Mute]

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust the government (especially the one currently controlled by Obama's crew) to not make this into the exact opposite of what it's supposed to be.