Jump to content
Computer Audiophile


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DuckToller

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,356 profile views
  1. Network Neutrality

    I am still wondering what you would like to express with that phrase! Do you really believe, having a regulation in place, for an infrasture-based market on which several types of services compete, is a takeover? So, in fact, the EU has taken over all the US companies, that compete on infrastructure, telecoms and internet service markets in Europe, and the companies like Cisco and Juniper, who serve the data center infrastructure as well? I believe. Not!
  2. Network Neutrality

    Priaptor, thank you for getting the point. I agree to disagree! I feel there is a misunderstanding from your side, how the market mechanism works in layered markets the. But that's ok. I would not like to dicuss with you the US healthcare scenario, as i do have only an opion based on my experience in Germany and France about their health care systems, but I have never been active on that market nor did I do academic research on it. On the other hand, I have started asking myself, which is the premise of your thinking, when you assume that living in an particular country helps to understand why the broadband last mile and middle mile market monoplies are comparable to US Healthcare since 1965? If discussing opening telecom markets from former monopolies into nearly functional competition, academic knowledge on incumbent behaviour and personal experience in negotiating Leased Lines with Time Warner, or peering contracts worldwide, might be more substantial for the subject, than living in the US and having "suffered" from the american healthcare system. I am happy for your positive perspective with fast internet access, but I would be careful to generalize not yet realised connections to quickly. From my experience of the time to market cycle in that industry, neither your advanced price scheme has been a result of Net Neutrality, nor your announced access improvement in Montana have been a result of the decision made last week. The investment plans rule there, not a FCC decision, that will have surely several runs on court before being effective. Cheers Tom
  3. Network Neutrality

    2nd try, ;-( Priaptor; The citation you might wantetd to copy is " And cable broadband has not been opened up to (utility) competition in 2015, that is why cutting off the NN principles counts so much for them ". This is not just a presumption. That is knowledge, which arrives from a view of monopoly markets and market failures arriving from them. IMHO, there are a lot of reasons why public authorities should control, shape and speeding up competition in markets, which are dependend on infrasctructure and where incumbents are used to set the barriers to entry as high as possible. Leaving the mainland 15 or more years behind the big city development on failed competition due to false comprehention of the markets, in my view is shame for your country. I have noted, that ATT has received over 600 m USD (2015) for the rural infrastructure, received per add-on to long distance call billing, but used it to further ATT's own business plans. This is (former) incumbants behaviour, I have already mentioned the Swisscom case above. It is not "appropriate" to compare healthcare and telecoms: Healthcare - gouverment regulation - failure (maybe correct) is comparable to Broadband market - gouverment regulation - failure (maybe wrong, Europe experience shows different outcomes) Your comparison, even not totally wrong as there is undoubtly impact from regulation, is not suitable but it is more like: Ball (soccer size) - made from marble - not usable for a soccer match (correct) is comparable to Ball (soccer size) - filled with air - not usable for a soccer match (wrong) And I do not at all question your experience kicking the marble ball i.e. healthcare!! ;-) I've clearly understood your bond to the healthcare industry, but it does not necessarily imply a deeper understanding on the telecom markets und their dysfunctionality on last and middle mile competition, or how "The NET" works. You might put your experience behind, and look without ideology burden on the reality of (non)-existing competition in that market. You should as well take into account that "The NET" is an end-to-end service, which is assumed to work infrastructure agnostic (i.e. neutral), which implies, that the idea of altering this service in the incumbant's interest is a direct attack on the design philosophy of "The NET" and doomed to have a undesirable effects for the users. Cheers, Tom
  4. Network Neutrality

    Priaptor; The citation you might wantetd to copy is " And cable broadband has not been opened up to (utility) competition in 2015, that is why cutting off the NN principles counts so much for them ". This is not just a presumption. That is knowledge which arrives from a view of monopoly markets and market failures arriving from them.
  5. Network Neutrality

    I think the United Kingdom had been the first market to open (at that time) telephone access to competion with unbundling and "diversifying" the old BT in the 90ties. The other key markets in Europe have done that about a decade later, after having studied the effects in the UK. You might see some former incumbents still complaining their obligation to secure a (minimum) service for remote households, and moving on in the wrong directions. Just read on Sunday, that e.g. the Swisscom (Incumbent in Switzerland) does have pocket double the cost of a fiber network from clients in a remote valley over the last 5 years timespan, but still provide only copper services there. Due to the existing competition control from the EU, the means of competition and the access to the customers are provided in the telephony market, which includes the internet access an all areas (afaik). The newest research on European level could be found in this document from May 2017: http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp17028.pdf (Speeding Up the Internet: Regulation and Investment in European Fibre Optic Infrastructure)
  6. Network Neutrality

    I was reading and trying to follow the the discussion, as it looks like the main focus for the contributors here is the last mile access operator. The US has an average of two operators per houshold, which I read as 33 % are monopolized, 33 % have a duopoly and the rest about 3 or more providers to choose from. And cable broadband has not been opened up to (utility) competition in 2015, that is why cutting off the NN principles counts so much for them. I rather had a view on NN on an inter-network exchange, which might concern the BB provider or not, and excludes the content, that is already close to the access crowd via content delivery networks like AKAMAI. Being in Europe, this might be kind of my "next hop", while you as customers obviously need to look on your next bill. With the current model re-monopolized, even with the perspective of 5G broadband, I can't see fruitful competition in the coming. Afaik, the advantage will lie in connecting groups of residential customers with ethernet connection provisioned by singel/multiple on air broadband connections on a point to multipoint network (example: on skyscraper with antenna, all housholds and company could get alternative access) That again will exclude many users, who do not live in populated areas or big cities. Last mile unbundling or carrier free LMA via local utilities would put the focus of competition on the middle mile and the distribution networks, but it would definitely stimulate the competition with more market player able to make offers to the customer. If the oligopolies of content distribution in the last mile would have to open up, the customer could choose e.g. from virtual internet service providers (imho, this would be the most extreme form of choice for the customer). This won't happen cutting off the priciples of Network Neutrality, as, due to the mechanisms of monopoly, advantages will be always played against its weakest stakeholders. And by the way, I think medicare is a very important and difficult subject, but can't be used when discussing the fields of communication networks. Where the competition happens nowadays between the physical/data link/network layer (Layer 1-3), and the Data level (Layer 5-7), which includes particularly the content provision of layer7. I can't see that mirrored in the medicare discussion. Cheers, Tom
  7. Network Neutrality

    Let's start with the Koch brothers ... https://www.wired.com/story/koch-brothers-are-cities-new-obstacle-to-building-broadband/
  8. Network Neutrality

    Come on Priaptor, don't be so lame ;-) The topic from Ralf11 and my added question have a serious background. That some liberterian (right wing?) and left wing echoes surround a political decision is quite normal, but shouldn't hinder to discuss the issue. Cheers & respect to the dark side Tom
  9. Network Neutrality

    Salut again, Oldzorki, I have some concerns comparing a mainly infrastructural driven distribution network, which in Europe has only some big players in the game, and that has only one or two goods to transport, with the telecommunications networks (funfact: lots of telco backbone infrastructures is running on gas infrastructure trails) transporting all kinds of telecommunication services (check out the OSI-Modell for greater comprehention). For the Internet infastructure, backbone and last mile access competes with services and contents that is produced often on other continents. Eyeballs want services and content, accessible for as less money as possible, they usually don't care about which network works behind that. If you can't deliver (in time, quality and pricing) you loose your customer base. As Service, as content distributor, sometimes if competition is available, as LMA-provider as well. "A very simple rule to separate ISP from content providers will make all this net-neutrality regulations moot." I can't make any sense out of this sentence. Could you please elaborate ? Is, in your opinion, content not (enough) seperated from ISPs, and why more seperation would moot this net-neutrality regulations? Is that your problem solution, in a nutshell ?
  10. Network Neutrality

    It is not easy too look into the future, but my small (educated) guess would be, that competition on the household end will lower prices for a foreseeable timescale, which will be subsidized from the services, that will pay for advanced routing (and charge customers directly for that) like netflix, PPV, VPNs, Backup-Services like Amazon and other payed servcices, that will see an advantage in paying the network before the customer to access him better/give him the premium feeling (if he pays for that). Just in case the landline offerings will get technically advanced (they will be all too soon be called that), the prized will rise again to skim at both ends. But thats just the model for monetarizing the new rules, if positive discrimination is allowed, the impact on content provision is not alone defined by money. Even Fox might not pay more than its competitor, it could have the faster access lanes than CNN, if the network's managment decides that. (Just an example) Cheers Tom
  11. Network Neutrality

    Oldzorki, if no-one did that before, firstly I like give you a warm welcome to the CA community. I am not sure, your have read the whole comment I made, nor that you have a greater understanding on the subject, but unfortunately a sad sense of humor. ;-) And I felt a bit like reading a troll attack on some serious concerns I posted. IMHO, internet economics matters a lot, and the subject will have more and more impact on us, our environments, and the way the world inside and outside the USA will develop. Therefore, let me please correct you in a serious manner: Net neutrality, as a principle, was established in 2003 and had been common sense in the internet community & practise, even before it was named as such, and since then. In 2015, that principle was enforced by the FCC by classifying ISPs as common carriers, which are ruled by the Title II of the "Communication Act" of 1934. In other words, "Net Neutrality", the principle, which was common ground in the industry (worldwide), was put on a legal basis by the FCC, allowing them a ruling on that subject then. "The FCC classified Internet service providers as common carriers, effective June 12, 2015, for the purpose of enforcing net neutrality.[6]" " source wikipedia Physical access monoplization is a different subject in my view, and with the fractured market in the States, I can't see a ruling on federal level as (with a look at the broadbandnow.com) it looks like the majority of Americans have a fair choice of service. (But I am again not sure, that you wanted to start a profound discussion on that topic?) The global Internet backbone, which offers world wide access for you to parts of the internet, which are not physical present in the USA, and which is the focus of the net neutrality discussion, has just another dimension. Cheers, Tom
  12. Network Neutrality

    After the decision was made from FCC yesterday, what would be the scenarios you could imagine/you have already experienced for discrimated (slower/more expensive) services in the computerized audiophile world ? - music online shops? - music streaming sevcies? - companies that have only online presence (no main street retail)? - always connected software like Roon? - your basic telephony/mobile data/internet acces? - VPN services? - Online backup services? - special interest websites/fora? - commercial offers from outside of the USA, Qobuz e.g.? Using BGP for more exclusive preferences than internally setting prefered routes/ASes towards the peers usually comes with losses for your network performance in the global network interconnection world. If it comes to that practise, as a regional but general net principle, the trigger for better perfomance will be money from connected networks/customers etc..If you can't/don't want to pay the prime, you (and all your customers) are behind. But you have a choice to made. And your customers as well. I am afraid, but in my opinion net neutrality was a kind of guarantee that the USA, which afaik owns most of the IP-Adress ranges available, was truely interconnected to the rest of the world and shared the rise of the internet economy with clients/partners/customers/friends and enemies inside and outside of the US territory. This might change without net neutrality, and it will have impacts on the smooth flow of goods and services I suspect. I assume as well, that the economic impact of that decisiAon, which is like a hard Brexit on IP interconnection level, will be huge. The Asian, African and European networks might not accept being discriminated for the market entry in the US, while the US networks continue to profit from neutrality in Europe and elsewhere. I remember the times after the new millenium had started, when global networks have consolidated their national networks into one big overall network, but this effect might be reversed, because the positive outcomes can imho just be archived within the network neutrality. In my personal opinion the destruction of network neutrality from the major (inter)national market for networks is a willingly discriminating and chauvinistic act, that will lead only to a temporary advantage for a minority. I can't imagine, that this decision will stand for a longer period (e.g more than five years)! Tom (former peering manager at AS3209)
  13. In case you were note notified, have a look here: Cheers, Tom ;-)
  14. JRiver for Win does work, with newest iFi drivers and Asio Proxy 0.8.3 (from sourceforge), as noted in the review. If it is a hardware (mac) specific problem, other software might run in the same limitations. Cheers, Tom
  15. Hi saintcrusher, I am not a Roon user myself, but I had the impression, that their support is very responsive on that subject. I can tell you from my own experience, that the setup for DSD512 output under Windows with ASIO is not trivial, but it works. You may like to ask your question as well in the AMR/iFi or Roon subforums at this site ... Cheers, Tom