Net Neutrality
-
So, you're saying that you've got better service at the USPS than Comcast?
I don't have Comcast, but interestingly, I routinely get mail from the opposite coast in 2 days.
-
So, you're saying that you've got better service at the USPS than Comcast?
I think you're joking, but I am saying exactly that. By orders of magnitude.
-
HOLY FUCK you're getting gouged. 50/5 here for $55 with TWC as well
Yes I am. That's a pretty good rate... how are...
Google Fiber
Oh. Lucky.
-
Honestly I don't get this post.
Net Neutrality doesn't attempt to solve this problem, and will end up encouraging it.
Net Neutrality attempts to prevent the supplier (ISP) from treating data differently based on the source.
It does nothing to prevent the supplier from treating data differently based on the destination. In fact it encourages that to offset the cost.
-
I got my current rate before they announced they are coming here.
-
I got my current rate before they announced they are coming here.
Oh. Well maybe we're just behind the times then.
At least we don't have Comcast. I guess that's a plus.
-
The problem is that, there are ways to hide the source, and there are too many market detriments to treating data differently based on source. So the market protects us from what Net Neutrality claims we need protection from.
If anyone thinks Net Neutrality is supposed to stop speed bracketing, they haven't read up on it at all.
-
Except Jobs from 2002-2013 is on (pretty much) the same best-fit line which would indicate that there's no correlation between Title II and job loss.
Which is a different fact that can be extracted from the chart and in no way invalidates the fact that the chart claims.As well the chart doesn't provide Y axis values.
Yes it does. The center line is an index value of 100, indexed to 1994 values. The chart is not one of absolute values, it's one of relative values.
-
there are too many market detriments to treating data differently based on source
Apparently not. It got Comcast, TWC, etc a bunch of money by forcing Netflix to pay more to deliver their traffic at proper speeds.
-
Oh wow.
They found one example, and expect us to buy in on the tin foil hat explosion of this tactic.
- It's the only case of it, in how many years of internet.
- Netflix is 30% of internet traffic.
- Netflix managed to pay the cost without affecting their prices to the customer.
- There's no point in ISPs charging a Geocities site for the fast lane. There's no economical way to collect that payment. They can only charge big companies like this.
- There have been exchanges like this in other forms of media that never get talked about. We don't deign to discuss every transaction over movie/tv/music industry contracts and negotiations. This is a scare tactic for a power grab.
-
What incentives do they have to not do this? Pissing off their customers? That won't work because they are regional monopolies. The ISP has everyone by the balls in this situation, both the customer and the suppliers.
-
Explain to me, in cost to yourself, how you were affected by this deal between comcast and netflix.
They cannot, will not, pin down all sources of internet traffic to charge these fees to every mom and pop shop.
And if they do, we have proxies, p2p, darknet.
There's no way for them to chase down everyone and force them to pay supplier fees.
-
For reference, home ISP is TWC with 30MB/s down 5MB/s up for ~$100
Fuck that shit. My iPhone 5S running OOKLA speedtest and with a signal strength of 3 dots out of 5 on Orange (France)'s 4G service gets 47.45 Mbps down, 39.53 Mbps up. It would, I think, go higher if I had better signal strength.And I can make phone calls with it as well.
-
Yeah. That's about the gist for mobile connections.
The key is that where I live I do get reasonable signal strength. In the tunnels of the Lille Metro, not so much.
-
There have been exchanges like this in other forms of media that never get talked about.
They usually get laws passed against them as soon as they're discovered. Like payola for radio stations, back when radio stations were relevant. Or cheating on quiz game shows.
This is a scare tactic for a power grab.
Once again: Comcast could not POSSIBLY get any shittier. I'm happy for anybody to grab power away from them.
-
Once again: Government could not POSSIBLY get any shittier. I'm happy for anybody to grab power away from them.
FTFY
-
Apparently not. It got Comcast, TWC, etc a bunch of money by forcing Netflix to pay more to deliver their traffic at proper speeds.
This sounds like a serious misrepresentation of what's actually happening. Netflix now has different connections to Comcast, and that's what they're paying for.
That won't work because they are regional monopolies.
Inviting the Feds in isn't going to stop that. A lot of the monopolies aren't going to go away quickly one way or the other, but I haven't seen anything convincing that the Hail Mary of inviting the FCC to the party (possibly illegally) is going to change things for the better.
-
Explain to me, in cost to yourself, how you were affected by this deal between comcast and netflix.
Irrelevant
And if they do, we have... darknet.
Because herp derp regular internet users give a shit and are going to hunt for sites by IP. Yeah right.
-
Netflix now has different connections to Comcast, and that's what they're paying for.
Like how I pay for my home internet, and mobile internet, and if I programed something, I could have them concurrently download pieces of a file over the separate connections and get a "fast" lane?
-
Except, it has been widely reported that Netflix's issues weren't Net Neutrality (discriminating based on source) issues.
Netflix was buying transit from a carrier that couldn't keep up with their demand. Their carrier went to the major ISPs and said "we want more bandwidth in our interconnects, as a settlement-free peering connection". The major ISPs said "there's a big difference in traffic coming from you versus traffic going to you, we think (in line with accepted industry practice) that you should pay settlement for the traffic you're sending." Cogent (Netflix's carrier) said no, and the interconnects didn't get upgraded. Cogent then started prioritizing traffic from their customers paying full rate (rather than the wholesale rate Netflix paid) through the congested interconnects.
Netflix wanted to fix the issue, and requested that the ISPs co-locate CDN nodes for them. The ISPs asked for fees to offset the power and rack space costs involved with co-locating servers. Netflix declined, and asked for a settlement-free peering connection. The ISPs declined (in line with accepted industry practice) and offered a traditional settlement peering connection. After Netflix accepted that with Comcast, things cleared up very quickly because Comcast was ready to go on the engineering side for the interconnects. Verizon has taken a bit longer, because they weren't pre-doing the engineering before the contract got signed. But in both cases, removing Cogent was the solution, not paying Comcast some bribe money to let the traffic in from Cogent.
-
Irrelevant
That's never irrelevant.
The only thing I care about is the bottom line price for my home.If you want to care about how it affects the "big evil corporations", have at it. But I thought that was what we were complaining about.
The government always complains about the "big evil corporations" not allowing anyone to comment on how they are the biggest damn monopoly of what they supply in the world.
And that any time they need resources, they steal investments (aka taxes) by force under threat of seizure of property or some other bullshit. I didn't get to vote on the new (obamacare) tax.
-
You mean gasp they over simplified the problem to make it look like a threat to the consumer.
The consumer needs protection!!!
From what? The internal transactions from two "big evil corporations"?
We don't get any protection from the big evil government printing money and handing it to the big evil banks. And that's the #1 loss of wealth for myself.
-
The key is that where I live I do get reasonable signal strength. In the tunnels of the Lille Metro, not so much.
So? Doesn't make it reliable for everyone - my own cell reception in Hamburg paints a different picture.
Not to mention that wireless is a shared medium.
-
The major ISPs said "there's a big difference in traffic coming from you versus traffic going to you, we think (in line with accepted industry practice) that you should pay settlement for the traffic you're sending."
I'm a bit weirded out by this: Isn't the traffic going to the ISPs caused by the ISP's customers?
In essence, you're stating that the ISPs customers caused the traffic (and paid for the traffic, by the way) which then made the ISPs say: "Hey, our customers request so much traffic from you, pay us for the traffic our customers are causing!"
-
Isn't the traffic going to the ISPs caused by the ISP's customers?
What he's saying here though is that it's an ISP to ISP deal. ISPs pay each other to carry each other's traffic. If ISP A is sending ISP B more data than ISP B is sending to ISP A, ISP A will have to pay more to ISP B for their services.
-
The major ISPs said "there's a big difference in traffic coming from you versus traffic going to you, we think (in line with accepted industry practice) that you should pay settlement for the traffic you're sending."
Of course there's more traffic coming from Netflix. It's all the stuff the ISPs' clients asked for being sent to them. Your clients are supposed to be the ones paying for you to support their requests. You can't hold content providers to the same standard you hold other service providers. Other service providers use your network to provide service to their users. Content providers use your network to provide a service to YOUR users. If your users couldn't reach Netflix, they wouldn't be paying for the caps and bandwidth in the first place.
Hanzo'd by Rhywden.
-
What he's saying here though is that it's an ISP to ISP deal. ISPs pay each other to carry each other's traffic. If ISP A is sending ISP B more data than ISP B is sending to ISP A, ISP A will have to pay more to ISP B for their services.
Last time I looked, Netflix is not an ISP.
-
-
^ above post.
-
^ above post.
So? Doesn't invalidate my posts in any way - the traffic to the ISP is caused by the ISP's customers.
If we were talking about traffic passing through, alright. But an ISP is an endpoint.
-
Their carrier went to the major ISPs and said "we want more bandwidth in our interconnects, as a settlement-free peering connection". The major ISPs said "there's a big difference in traffic coming from you versus traffic going to you, we think (in line with accepted industry practice) that you should pay settlement for the traffic you're sending."
The problem with the argument that Cogent should be paying for the interconnect upgrade of the recipeient is that Cogent had no choice about where they wanted to send their data (assuming we aren't talking about "hot potato" routing, which there was no evidence this was occurring); Comcast, Verizon, et. al. own the last mile for a large number of asymmetric connections. The imbalance was by the recipient ISP's own design, not the sender's.Edit: Damnit, Hanzo'd
-
It's the same issue. ISP A has many clients that want to download stuff. ISP B has one client that provides stuff to download. All the traffic ISP B is sending to ISP A is the responses to the requests ISP A's clients made. Bandwidth for which ISP A's clients have already paid.
-
If we were talking about traffic passing through, alright. But an ISP is an endpoint.
That's what we are talking about. Cognet was (effectively) Netflix's ISP.
-
That's what we are talking about. Cognet was (effectively) Netflix's ISP.
Did you miss the part where I talked about "passing through"?
I'll make it simple:
Comcast's customers pay for access.
Comcast's customers request data from Netflix.
Cogent delivers the data from Netflix to Comcast's customers.At which point did Cogent deliver data which Comcast's customers were not the cause of?
Then again, I always forget that you US-Americans also have this weird system where you have to pay for incoming calls...
-
you have to pay for incoming calls...
Erm, no. If you're speaking of legacy POTS, we pay for outgoing calls generally - not incoming.
-
Erm, no. If you're speaking of legacy POTS, we pay for outgoing calls generally - not incoming.
I distinctly remember that there at least were mobile plans where you had a limited amount of minutes for incoming calls.
-
And those didn't succeed.
-
Such mobile plans still exist, but the market has generally moved to "unlimited" voice minutes on mobile.
-
Such mobile plans still exist, but the market has generally moved to "unlimited" voice minutes on mobile.
So, you guys do understand that it's weird to pay for something you were not the cause of. We're making progress here.
-
So, you guys do understand that it's weird to pay for something you were not the cause of. We're making progress here.
Netflix had a bottleneck between it and my ISP.
I'm glad my ISP chose to not charge me a second subscription fee to Netflix.
I think the cost was directed correctly through the right channels.
Had they started the precedence for charging the user per site they visit, we'd have another problem.
-
I'm glad my ISP chose to not charge me a second subscription fee to Netflix.
TDEMS
EDIT: You filled in the post after I replied.
-
Netflix had a bottleneck between it and my ISP.
I'm glad my ISP chose to not charge me a second subscription fee to Netflix.
I think the cost was directed correctly through the right channels.
Had they started the precedence for charging the user per site they visit, we'd have another problem.By making Netflix pay for getting rid of the bottleneck, they effectively did charge you a second fee.
-
Someone SOMEWHERE had to pay for fixing the bottleneck.
They had three options.
- Pass the cost of Netflix users onto all their customers.
- Charge their customers a fee for connecting to Netflix.
- Charge Netflix and let them decide whether to pass the fee onto the customer.
They chose option #3, and Netflix chose to NOT pass the cost onto me.
I find myself in a win-win scenario here, and the government is trying to convince me I lost something and need their protection.
What's so great about the other two options, that requires illegalizing the third one.
-
Someone SOMEWHERE had to pay for fixing the bottleneck.
This someone is your ISP. You do pay them for access to the internet, don't you?
-
So, you're saying that allowing the market to make the choice is bad.
And that, government intervention is necessary to ensure that the cost get directed to me through the right channels?
Something that will just drive up the price of that business interaction, and end up costing me even more for the same service.
Why do people discount the cost of running government when they decide regulation is needed to ensure the market makes a different choice?
-
So, you're saying that allowing the market to make the choice is bad.
And that, government intervention is necessary to ensure that the cost get directed to me through the right channels?
I'm saying that Mafia-style extortion is bad. "Nice traffic to us from your site. Would be a shame if something ... happened to it."
-
So, you guys do understand that it's weird to pay for something you were not the cause of.
TDEMSYR
My plan is limited in minutes. Coming or going. Someone has to pay for it. The people calling me have no way (aside from me telling them) that my number is a mobile phone. I'm paying them for the connection to the phone system. This isn't that hard.
-
What do you expect them to do with the cost?
Tell me this magical alternative, that eliminates the cost of the bottleneck, and doesn't add increase cost of government intervention by additional taxes?
-
TDEMSYR
My plan is limited in minutes. Coming or going. Someone has to pay for it. The people calling me have no way (aside from me telling them) that my number is a mobile phone. I'm paying them for the connection to the phone system. This isn't that hard.
Well, over here we have different numbers for hard lines and for mobiles. It's not my problem if your system is shitty all-around so that you have those asinine "solutions".
-
By making Netflix pay for getting rid of the bottleneck, they effectively did charge you a second fee.
I suppose you don't think you should have to pay your ISP for higher upload capacity?
