4 ms·

One thing that came to my mind (and bear in mind that I don't live in the US, so I might not know all the facts): IMHO wired network neutrality is in fact more

by pilif 16y ago

One thing that came to my mind (and bear in mind that I don't live in the US, so I might not know all the facts): IMHO wired network neutrality is in fact more important than wireless because, I have a feeling that while you are free to chose a wireless carrier that doesn't do the kind of filtering you don't want, that's plain impossible in many wired cases. One thing is sure: If your wireless provider begins to, say, block YouTube because they want to push their own video service, then there will for sure be another wireless provider that lists not blocking youtube as a distinct feature, trying to get all these youtube users as customers. In the majority of areas, there's more than one provider that provides wireless connectivity. But the landline is different. Sure you have analog phone everywhere, but that's not really "internet". Is it? If you want broadband, you have one or at most two carriers to chose from, both usually with a very hight business interest to cripple various services on the internet (Youtube for example) and knowing full well that they would get away with that because there are no options (and building them is prohibitively expensive or even impossible depending on the country - if you wanted to lay yet another cable through rural areas here in Switzerland, you'd be blocked for ages by various legal issues). From this perspective I can understand Google's motivation there: Promise neutrality where there is no competition and allow the wireless carriers to provide the quality of service they need and even allow them to do selective blocking of services because in the wireless space there at least is some competition.

loup-vaillant 16y ago
The facts contradict you, at least here in France. Here, we have 3 major carriers. None gives you a public IP, and each block most ports (except http, pop3 and such —smtp is blocked, of course). They may have Web neutrality, but Net neutrality is a distant dream. On the land line, however, you have your public IP, and some providers don't even block smtp. The situation there is much better. Even if you take the low bandwidth into account. I can't how this will evolve, but for now, the emergency seems to be the wireless.
- pilif 16y ago
  the wireless carriers here in switzerland also don't provide you with a public IP - at least depending on your location. I think this has more technical reasons than anything else. The three carriers we can chose from are strangely (and probably illegally - the state is looking into this) similar to each other, but all of them don't make any effort in traffic shaping or controlling. OTOH, they are pretty expensive for what they provide. When AT&T in the US added that 2 GB cap, I was sighing and looking at my 250MB cap. Sure, other carriers have better deals (better as in "cheaper bandwidth" but worse coverage), but you basically can't get more then 1GB for a reasonable price. Aside of that though, they don't care how you use the service they provide. Not having a public IP I can live with. Paying so much for data is annoying, but if that's the way for them to provide me with unfiltered and unconstrained net access, then I'm fine with that. Hell, the word "tethering" wasn't even a word here before the iPhone came around - hooking up your notebook to your phone has always been possible (and encouraged - see prices and caps).
  - loup-vaillant 16y ago
    > Not having a public IP I can live with You do realize that it forbids your phone (or the computer you tether) to be a server, right? That means you can't receive calls over IP without the need for a third party, for instance. So I'd say they do care about how you use their service. They wouldn't want to give you the means of destroying their busyness model, now do they?
    - pilif 16y ago
      I am perfectly well able to receive SIP calls over that private IP. Sure. You do need STUN, but honestly, I have a feeling that it's ever so much easier to do correct roaming between cell towers with those internal IPs which is likely the reason for this configuration.
      - loup-vaillant 16y ago
        I don't know how roaming is supposed to work, but I'd be very surprised if your feeling was grounded. Here's why: (1) You keep the same phone number, wherever you are. (2) Calls don' end even when you move. Which means they can keep track of state, and link that state to your phone. Id' be very surprised if the same kind of mechanism couldn't be use on IP technology. My bet is, they do: have you ever noticed having to constantly reconnect when you drive in a well covered area? If not, that most probably mean that they keep track of the NAT table associated to your phone, and of course your private IP. In that case, I can't fathom why they couldn't do the same with a pubic IP.

by pilif 16y ago

loup-vaillant 16y ago

The facts contradict you, at least here in France. Here, we have 3 major carriers. None gives you a public IP, and each block most ports (except http, pop3 and such —smtp is blocked, of course). They may have Web neutrality, but Net neutrality is a distant dream. On the land line, however, you have your public IP, and some providers don't even block smtp. The situation there is much better. Even if you take the low bandwidth into account. I can't how this will evolve, but for now, the emergency seems to be the wireless.

pilif 16y ago
the wireless carriers here in switzerland also don't provide you with a public IP - at least depending on your location. I think this has more technical reasons than anything else. The three carriers we can chose from are strangely (and probably illegally - the state is looking into this) similar to each other, but all of them don't make any effort in traffic shaping or controlling. OTOH, they are pretty expensive for what they provide. When AT&T in the US added that 2 GB cap, I was sighing and looking at my 250MB cap. Sure, other carriers have better deals (better as in "cheaper bandwidth" but worse coverage), but you basically can't get more then 1GB for a reasonable price. Aside of that though, they don't care how you use the service they provide. Not having a public IP I can live with. Paying so much for data is annoying, but if that's the way for them to provide me with unfiltered and unconstrained net access, then I'm fine with that. Hell, the word "tethering" wasn't even a word here before the iPhone came around - hooking up your notebook to your phone has always been possible (and encouraged - see prices and caps).
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  > Not having a public IP I can live with You do realize that it forbids your phone (or the computer you tether) to be a server, right? That means you can't receive calls over IP without the need for a third party, for instance. So I'd say they do care about how you use their service. They wouldn't want to give you the means of destroying their busyness model, now do they?
  - pilif 16y ago
    I am perfectly well able to receive SIP calls over that private IP. Sure. You do need STUN, but honestly, I have a feeling that it's ever so much easier to do correct roaming between cell towers with those internal IPs which is likely the reason for this configuration.
    - loup-vaillant 16y ago
      I don't know how roaming is supposed to work, but I'd be very surprised if your feeling was grounded. Here's why: (1) You keep the same phone number, wherever you are. (2) Calls don' end even when you move. Which means they can keep track of state, and link that state to your phone. Id' be very surprised if the same kind of mechanism couldn't be use on IP technology. My bet is, they do: have you ever noticed having to constantly reconnect when you drive in a well covered area? If not, that most probably mean that they keep track of the NAT table associated to your phone, and of course your private IP. In that case, I can't fathom why they couldn't do the same with a pubic IP.