I agree to Idea NO "management" or "data shaping" at all.
Voting Disabled

169 votes

I disagree to Idea NO "management" or "data shaping" at all.

Rank19

Idea#59

This idea is active.
Reasonable Network Management »

NO "management" or "data shaping" at all.

Packets should be treated like US mail. while they are in transit, they are sacred and their integrity is sacrosanct.

Nobody, anywhere in the network, should have any right whatsoever to look at data, shape data, count data, or anything like that. Especially for the purposes of controlling it.

the best way to accomplish this is to make sure there are absolutely no proprietary portions of the internet. right now huge swaths of the network have been subverted to protocols such as DOCSIS which only cable companies can control. that means that if i find a cable modem on the market that goes at 1gbit, i can't use it because the cable company is controlling a portion of the internet. this harks back to the pre-carterfone days before the supreme court ruled that bell telephone had to allow third party telephones onto its network.

we should all have highly redundant mesh-like connections to the internet, and we should all be directly connected to the real internet, with our own public ip#, and everything that goes along with that. if somebody invents a faster communications technology, we should be able to deploy that without asking anybody for permission.

If the backbone suffers congestion because people are upgrading their speeds, then that must simply be strengthened, but i would like to point out that 300bps telephone modems used the exact same amount of telephone infrastructure as 56Kbit modems. this idea that it costs more to serve a higher speed connection is merely a figment of monopolists' imagination.

Submitted by 4 years ago

Comments (15)

  1. While I definitely want to preserve net neutrality in the sense of the internet being content neutral, I recognize that providing bandwidth is the major cost an ISP has, and therefore it may be necessary to bill proportional to bandwidth useage. While Dave's ideas work great for high density urban areas where there is lots of existing internet connections and lots of customers so that mesh networking is possible, it is not very feasible for rural areas where you can't even see your nearest neighbors, so you can't connect wirelessly. For country folks, prohibiting billing proportional to bandwidth useage means most of us wouldn't be able to afford a high-speed connection at all.

    I live in a rural location where satellite service is the only high-speed internet option available, and it costs me $60/month to get 200MB bandwidth per day. If my ISP couldn't cap my daily bandwidth, they'd have to put up a dozen more satellites to handle unlimited bandwidth for their existing customers, so the cost of an account would have to go up at least tenfold, so most of us would have to drop our high-speed service and go back to dial-up.

    I get very annoyed with the internet culture that is assuming unlimited bandwidth is available to everyone - the number of webpages that automatically stream high-resolution content to you the moment you stray onto them w/ no opt out option is wasting my precious bandwidth, and is the height of rudeness

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  2. Dave Kliman Idea Submitter

    @casnyder

    Thanks for your comment....

    I'd like to make a very important point. your assertion that "bandwidth is a major cost for an ISP" is ONLY true because in the 1996 telecommunications act, co-location, must connect, and price restriction rules were lifted off the phone monopolies.

    If, for example, you had a network in your house, you could multiply the speed of all your networking inside your house by 1000 by changing your 10mbit ethernet cards to 10gbit cards. although there would be a one time cost to get the new cards, then from then on, you're going 1000 times faster on the same wires. this is not very complicated even on a regional sized wide area network.

    The problem is this: Before the 1996 telecommunications act, it was required for phone companies to allow 3rd party isps into their central offices to install all of their own equipment, and only charge for the use of a WIRE, or better, the use of some right of way, as opposed to the metered use of BANDWIDTH.

    The result was that companies left and right were laying their own fiber, to the chagrin of the phone companies, and bandwidth was increasing exponentially. As scientists at MIT once said, BANDWIDTH itself approaches $0 in price because every 18 months or so, the amount of data that can be transmitted on the same strand of fiber doubles. it is like moore's law, but for bandwidth.

    the MISTAKE was to ALLOW the phone companies to charge for BANDWIDTH, instead of the real estate that the wire would go on, and as a result there are millions of miles of dark fiber that is not being used at all, because the phone companies have it in their best interest to very artificially keep bandwidth expensive. It was a huge grab they made in 1996, and we must undo that damage, so we can go back to exponential increases in speed coupled with exponential decreases in cost, that come with innovation.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  3. Dave, you are being a bit ridiculous. Go look at the price of telecom grade routers with 10Gb/s interfaces, or even 40 Gb/s interfaces. Remember, once all those 100 Mb/s connections from each subscriber are aggregated together into one pipe, that bandwidth has to be carried onward through the edge and core of the internet.

    It is like saying I can create a 10 lane highway down my street fairly cheaply, but I will still get onto the 4-late Interstate with everyone else, and making that 10 lanes for hundreds of miles does cost money.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  4. Dave Kliman Idea Submitter

    come on, open network, that's not how it works at all. there is so much dark fiber laid right now it is astounding....

    when the verizon exec said with the click of a simple command verizon could give 400mbits up/down to each user... at no additional cost to them at all, that doesn't surprise me one bit.

    we could go FAR faster and in doing so there would be innovation very rapidly to get us even faster...

    and in a mimo-mesh topology, there are never 4 lanes, but practically one lane per node at any time-so millions of lanes. just imagine a fish net, not a star.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  5. The dark fiber may be there but it takes more than that. Read up on the Internet and how it works. Your MIMO device eventually has to connect to the core Internet to be able to reach the rest of the websites and users in the world. That requires something called Routers. A core router from Cisco costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. And someone like AT&T has to buy hundreds of these things. The fiber is the low-cost item in this equation.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  6. Dave Kliman Idea Submitter

    there is no core necessary in a mimo mesh architecture.

    it is more like a fractal, with many nodes, many interconnections, high redundancy, and fewer large backbones... the backbone architecture you are talking about is precisely what internet architects were trying to get away from because it is highly susceptible to a nuclear attack... a mesh topology is not.

    I'd prefer AT&T got out of the networking business, or got split up into many small pieces again and this time we shouldn't let them congeal back together again.

    in a mesh network, everybody has routers or devices that are similar to them that connect them to multiple nodes. every packet can traverse the mesh to make its way to its destination. having the intelligence at the periphery of the network, and not inside it, is far superior, and was what was happening before the monopoly isps got so heavily involved.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  7. Again, you don't know what you are talking about! The Internet today IS a mesh! Have you ever looked at a diagram?

    You are talking nonsense. I am an Internet architect, I know how this stuff works.

    In your fantasy world of MIMO networks, how would I get onto the website of, say, an Australian newspaper? Is the US government going to mandate that the rest of the world adopt your magical MIMO device??

    I think you are misunderstanding MIMO. MIMO stands for Multiple Input and Multiple Output, and refers to the technology where there are multiple antennas at the base station and multiple antennas at the mobile device. It does not create some magical 'mesh' across the whole Internet!

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  8. Dave Kliman Idea Submitter

    I'm not going to get into a 1983 style flame war here. If you want to make personal attacks, go on some aol chat room, K. tks. bye.

    the internet most certainly is not a mesh at every scale.

    if it WERE a mesh, i'd be connected to 4-6 of my neighbors, and each of them would also be connected to me and each other.

    that topology would continue at every scale up to the entire world, like a fractal.

    right now, if i would like to communicate to my neighbor 4 houses down, who might or might not have my isp, i would have to trombone all my packets to a router miles from here. that is NOT a mesh topology.

    that is a permission based star topology, at least at the neighborhood level.

    as for MIMO it is not just for cellphones, but it is a general concept that can apply to any node on the network... multiple in, multiple out connections to any devices i'm connected to.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  9. Yes to no unfair or unnecessary data shaping and data management schemes.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  10. I quite agree that Internet packets should be treated basically like any package delivery service. But the post misses a few important aspects of this analogy. It's important to keep in mind that UPS, USPS, FedEx and others will charge different rates for the different services offered, including the delivery priority type of content (e.g., 'media'). It's not technically/economically feasible to charge the same basic per-pound rate for coal delivery by the trainload as same-day legal courier service. If my carrier wants to offer 'free evenings and weekends,' let them do it!

    On one aspect of the content-based issue, I'm not aware of any societal interest in mandating subsidizing bulk or media senders, and therefore consider government involvement in rate setting in a competitive market to be a mistaken policy. The Government best serves the public interest by keeping the market competitive.

    Safety is also important. UPS has a right to make sure that what they ship doesn't explode, harming (among others) their customers, employees and service. The Internet is a much-more abuse-ridden morass with around 90% of email containing spam, virus, phishing or other abuse. And it's not just our email inboxes that's at risk. Networks and services go down when attacked. ISPs run critical infrastructure (think of the damage to America of a day without the Internet). As a society, we decided that some inspection of packages and people in transit is necessary for our safety and way of life. Networks are no different - they can't be kept running without some inspection. Like TSA security, this is not a black & white issue. We need reasonable policies that balance our right to privacy with our need for security and the American way of life.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  11. Dave Kliman Idea Submitter

    Alex, your incorrect assumption about different costs per packet would make a difference if they weighed anything. but they don't.

    As a matter of a fact, Cisco just announced the CRS-3, which is a 322 TERABIT router, which only costs $90,000. It works with the same fiber we've been using, so basically the cost of bandwidth just went down by a factor of about a few orders of magnitude.

    UPS won't be able to get its costs down by a factor of 3000 the way that it can be done easily with some technological innovation.

    This is why google is able to say they want to offer gigabit UP/DOWN UNFETTERED non-shaped, not looked at, not slowed down, not examined, pure unadulterated clean BANDWIDTH for like less than $20/month per user.

    The ONLY thing standing in the way of progress is the big isps like cablevision, comcast, at&t, time warner, cox, etc., who would like to keep their tv and phone businesses, even though they should have closed those down by now because of faster speeds.

    It is not in the public interest to have a cable company or phone company deciding how fast we can go, and creating the false impression that you are under which says that bandwidth is somehow this rare thing that must be carefully dribbled out in tiny tiny little slices to regular people.

    It's a good thing their, and your mentality wasn't applied to processing power, or i suppose we would still have 1 megaflop machines that cost $250,000, with a million transistors on a refrigerator sized circuit board, in a room sized box.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  12. Dave,

    The wide variation in cost-per-packet is a real factor. And the cost per packet varies extremely widely, with QoS and transport being key drivers. Compare cellular Internet data service with LAN transport through a CRS-3. An entire cellular network costs billions of dollars yet transports less data than the $90k CRS-3.

    Many networks are designed for and have costs driven by busy-hour capacity. Off-peak, lower-priority traffic can usually be transported at much lower cost. Guaranteed bandwidth in busy hour is expensive in many environments.

    While costs are fortunately dropping, the trivial cost of a CRS-3 purchase pales in comparison to the cost of purchasing a 332 Tb Internet connection. A local router's cost is just the tip of the Internet iceberg.

    I will refrain from returning personal attacks, but note that it is a good thing that the 'people pay more to get more' mentality is applied. This sparks innovation, efficiency and long-term improvements. It's basic economics that this leads to better products (like the faster processors we now have) and lower costs.

    Blaming ISPs for advocating their own interest is about as useful as a dog biting a rock. The public interest lies in ensuring a competitive market, with laws and regulations that forbid anti-competitive practices; this, and not micromanaging ISPs' ability to offer various QoS at different price points, is the public interest that the FCC should champion.

    Regards,

    Alex

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  13. "Packets should be treated like US mail"

    ANALOGY FAIL

    You can pay for priority delivery with most major delivery services. (US Mail, FedEx, UPS etc.)

    Should this be illegal too? If someone pays for priority shipping and your stuff was shipped cheaply, they may process the priority stuff before yours in transit and THIS IS PERFECTLY LEGAL

    "this idea that it costs more to serve a higher speed connection is merely a figment of monopolists' imagination."

    You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  14. Dave Kliman Idea Submitter

    @onlybyforce

    the only FAIL here is your failure to understand my analogy. I was referring to the concept that a packet must not be examined, or watched, or followed by anybody, including isps, as they travel through the internet.

    that's what the law is for mail. mail is not the property of the sender or recipient while en route, you probably didn't know. it belongs to the federal government and it is their fiduciary responsibility to get it to its destination intact and unharmed. it is a felony to open mail that is not addressed to you, or to steal it out of somebody's mailbox, which is also federal property.

    mail is so important that a mail delivery truck, especially a large cargo truck, takes higher priority on the roads than fire trucks, police, ambulances, and just about anything else.

    to have an isp traffic shaping, opening packets to see what's inside, and deciding what can go where and how fast is disgusting to even think of, and should be definitely and completely illegal.

    your understanding of "priority shipping" as it applies to light waves traveling through a strand of fiber totally fails too because with proper upgrades and innovation there is no need whatsoever to prioritize anything. just upgrade everybody to 100Gbit with innovations that are currently available, and being used today on internet2, and basically there will be no speed problem for anybody for a while. the fact is that we are now 22nd and rapidly falling behind the rest of the world because we have allowed at&t, verizon, comcast, cox, cablevision, time warner, and a few others to take over the public internet that was paid for by public money as if it were their own, and they have no intention whatsoever in allowing the speeds to increase to what is easily available through technology. that's why they cannot be in the cable laying and the information business at the same time. the conflict of interest is slowing the rest of us down.

    at&t and verizon are the children of the bell telephone monopoly, which was so slow that they were giving us practically the exact same dial telephones from the 1930s until the mid 1980s until the government enforced the sherman antitrust act and broke them up. unfortunately they are now almost completely back together and they are back to their old games of not allowing people to plug in their own cable modems that go at any speed possible, but instead are renting us equipment that goes at the same speed that it could have 15 years ago. nothing in technology stays still like that for so long unless the jackboot of a monopoly is firmly pressing into its neck.

    if we are to see constantly accelerating speeds and constant striving for innovation and new internet applications, hardware and software, we have to get these road hogs out of the way so the rest of us can innovate.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  15. [quote]

    with proper upgrades and innovation there is no need whatsoever to prioritize anything.

    [/quote]

    And that costs money. I agree with the overall sentiments of Dave Kilman. However, the economic aspects cannot be sidestepped. They will dominate what the final decisions and arrangements are, whether anyone likes it or not. If we genuinely want network neutrality to be the status quo, then we must ensure that the money is there to back it up. I would not be at all opposed to a significant chunk of US taxpayer money being diverted towards upgrading network infrastructure --under the assumption of course that the people as investors have a meaningful say in the way the network is managed. I'm no expert on taxation or corporate economies or politics, but I think that all parties could come to an open arrangement concerning the issue.

    As well, this issue reminds me a bit about rural electrification during the 20th century. Perhaps we should look to the past to understand what we are faced with now.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed

Vote Activity Show

(latest 20 votes)