For tech questions and discussions of tech stuff in the news.

This month should see 3 interesting developments.

- New imacs and macbooks within the next 2 weeks, according to appleinsider and similar sites.
- Windows 7 on Oct 22, and along with that release there should be new notebooks and netbooks from major manufacturers.
- Barnes and Noble is reportedly releasing an ebook reader in a couple of weeks for those into that.

Anyone here anticipating any of these? I'm curious about the new macbooks and have already pre-ordered W7 a few months ago.

I don't do anything apple related, except for an iPod and iTunes, and even then I'm moving away from both as of late (Blackberry and Amazon are taking its place...), so no interest in the macs.

I'm interested to see what Windows 7 is like, but I rarely am an early adopter of new Windows versions. I like to jump aboard a bit later when all the kinks are worked out.

The e-readers do look like a pretty cool idea. The Amazon Kindle would be the way I'd go. However, I'm not sure I'm ready to pay $299 just yet. It's probably something I'd jump on as the tech gets cheaper... I do like the thought of not having to get paper cuts anymore. Reading old paper books is so dangerous.

Tony, how's Windows 3.11 working out for you?

I have Windows 7, it's pretty cool. Plus, it doesn't permanantly delete all your saved data when you log on as a guest. I like that feature.

Currently in tech, the stories that interest me are:

- Republicans are pissing me off with their mindless opposition to Net Neutrality.
- I want Google Wave!!! I want it now!!!
- Heard that Windows 8 and 9 may support 128 bit in addition to 64 bit.
- iPhone getting FM on board app?

Net Neutrality is a solution to a problem that does not exist.

So the fact that ISP's have shapped traffic in the past, making headlines for doing so to BitTorrent and other file sharing websites, is not a problem? By what reasoning? And is it then OK to shape traffic by blocking VOIP? Online Gaming? Where does this line stop?

Umm, it's called Quality of Service, Karl. ISP's do it all the time to make sure that the customers' Internet experience is good.

That's a GOOD thing.

It's a good thing to who? And where does this line get drawn? Who decides what provides the best QoS, Comcast? You trust Comcast to self regulate themselves? Really? Since it's inception, the Internet has followed the general principle that all traffic be treated the same, and Comcast hiding behind QoS is a sham that I can't believe you buy into.

There are other ways to go about providing quality service, if indeed that is their concern. For instance, limit the amount of traffic per user per month to a limit your network can handle. Allow those who use more to pay more. Don't get me wrong, I'd hate that practice too, but at least it's not discriminatory bull shit, and at least then I could watch Comcasts business model blow up in their face.

It's a good thing for 99% of the people out there who never use BitTorrent. Besides, from a personal experience, I use BitTorrent with Comcast and I have never had an issue with slowdowns, despite all the outcries.

What's more important, I would rather trust Comcast to self-relugate under the threat of users switching to other services, rather than a government bureaucrat. I guess it's very "republican" of me.

So what you're saying is that you will whine and bitch no matter what happens. Good to know.

Then you must not have been one of the users Comcast targeted.

In no way, shape, or form is discriminating against certain types of traffic acceptable. There is an inherent problem with ISP's today in that generallly most people must choose between either Cable or DSL. Such a lack of choice creates an incentive and ability for companies like Comcast to discriminate against traffic / content / applications / etc, clearly something that isn't at the best interest of the consumer.

The FCC is charged with making sure all consumers, even the 1% you so quickly dismiss, are not discriminated against. Moreso, no network should discriminate based on content and in turn they shouldn't be held liable for content that operates and exists over it's network: Comcast simply provides the infastructure.

Many ISP's currently inspect the individual packets sent just so they can discriminate against P2P, online gaming, and FTP file transfers. It's garbage, it shouldn't be allowed, and it hits home for me moreso than any other issue today.



I won't complain when the right thing is done.

P2P and FTP are harbors for illegal activities like piracy so of course they're going to inspect them more closely.

Again:

No network should discriminate based on content and in turn they shouldn't be held liable for content that operates and exists over it's network: The ISP simply provides the infastructure and the access.

Legal, illegal, makes no difference in this argument (not to mention there are legal uses for them as well).

Legal uses or not, the illegal ones are really the only ones that matter as they're the ones Comcast, Qwest, etc. are worried about.

Not true in the slightest.

Is it illegal to play a game online? Then why are they targeted?
Is it illegal to upload a massive file to a server you own via FTP? Then why are they targeted?
Is it illegal to use a torrent to legally download a program? Then why are they targeted?

ISP's don't give a rats ass about the legality of the traffic they're shaping.

Sure it is.

If I was an ISP, this is how I'd run it:
Voice gets priority, then VPN, then gaming, then web, then video, then file-sharing. It's fucking common sense that things that should be allocated priority based on importance. I don't know what world you live in, but in the real world there is a limited amount of resources, and they have to be distributed according to some criteria.

Not true anymore. You can also get sattelite, wi-fi in some places, and 3G.

Comcast was chastised not for traffic shaping, but for preventing users from using BitTorrent (again, not in my experience). And by the way, it was reprimanded by FCC and stopped doing this. All without a Net Neutrality law.

If you don't like it, switch the ISPs and let them know why. Like I mentioned above, there are other options.

And what's right, exactly?

This goes to the problem in the debate: a majority of people have no clue what the debate is even about!

Companies like Comcast simply want to make more money, and they know that if they can give preferential treatment to certain types of traffic, they can then charge sites like YouTube to ensure their packets are transfered faster than companies who don't pay.

It's bull shit, don't buy into the garbage their PR machines spew at you.

This is a very intriguing argument.

It also has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion over Net Neutrality.

Ironic, isn't it?

Sure they do. Just like companies like Google want to make more money. In the end, you as a consumer have a choice who you use as an ISP and which websites you go to.

Let's not make this personal, OK? How about you assume that I am educated enough on the topic?

So let me get this straight:

1) Voice
2) VPN
3) Gaming
4) Web
5) Video
6) File haring

So what makes video less important than gaming? What makes the general web less important than voice? Why is voice so important when one can argue switchboards offer a better alternative that doesn't require any bandwidth? So why should it get priority here when it exists elsewhere in the same exact capacity?

Not to mention, what makes 1 packet any fricking different than the other? An ISP is only supposed to take care of getting a packet from A to B, not slow down and speed up packets based on who pays the most.

If ISPs didn't care about legality, there wouldn't be reports of ISPs reporting people to movie studios for illegally downloading movies, something Comcast in particular has been known to do.

I just don't understand how anyone who was well versed on the topic could possibly side with the ISP's, the FCC sure isn't. So what is making you side with them? There are a few arguments out there that at least hold weight, you haven't raised any so far.

Regardless, it's not personal, and I was actually responding to Harry with that post.

Don't fret over it, this was my attempt at mapping out what it's important for users. The point is that as an ISP I would find out what users want and deliver it to them in order of their preference.

Show me one example of an ISP delivering packets faster based on who pays the most. After all, this is the supposed problem that Net Neutrality legislation is trying to fix.

When's the last time you have seen me come out and say "oh, yeah, I believe in this case government regulation makes sense"?

That's the problem. One customer may use Torrents, other's may not. One may use VOIP, others may not. One may be a gamer, others not. What's important to any given user is not the same as everyone else. Giving one content type preferential treatment over another will always upset a subset of users. To please everyone, you treat all packets equally.



You really find it so hard to believe that an ISP would do it?

You know ISP's are about a half step away from making the internet operate the way cable currently does? Meaning you buy a package of sites rather than the whole internet. Sounds awesome right? Just because a loop hole or potential nightmare isn't being exposed currently, doesn't mean that someone somewhere won't see profitability in it and make it a reality.

On the flip side of this issue, you know that some sites actually charge the ISP to carry or deliver their content? Also bull shit, and also a violation of net neutrality. They literally put up a message telling anyone visiting their site from certain ISP's not paying them to switch ISPs in order to access their site.

I don't want the internet to be turned into what Cable TV is because companies in a non-competitive business environment decided to exploit their customers for financial gain. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.

I'm sorry, Karl, that's just ignorance. Given an unlimited amount of resources, sure, you please everyone. However, you don't have unlimited resources. Therefore you try to do the best with what you got.

It's not a hard concept, really, and it doesn't just apply to ISPs.

This is a free market; it is dictated by the wishes of the consumers and by the abilities of the providers.

I can guarantee you that there is no way an a "packaged" Internet plan would succeed. How do I know? Well, I don't have to look far: AOL, Prodigy, Compuserve - they were all ISPs with the model the way you described it. What happened to them? They turned into general service ISPs. Not because of some bullshit regulation, but because that's what consumers wanted.

Spare me the appeals the anti-Comcast rants. The world does not revolve around your hatred for that particular company. And the concerns over ISPs exploiting customers for financial gain belong in a sophomore economics class.