Net neutrality non-neutrality
-
@masonwheeler you're arguing from ignorance and I'm starting to be embarrassed for you. Your mental model of what's going on is oversimplified and your analogies don't make sense.
-
@Dragoon said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@Dragoon said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
If the content starts or ends on your network, you got paid (twice if it was all in network). It is only when you are a pure middle man that it should ever matter on how you get paid.
This all sounds nice but it seems to ignore the realities of how the sausage of network transport gets made.
No, it completely accepts that reality and enforces it on the people who don't like it. I as a consumer already pay my ISP for what I consume, so them demanding money from the producer is ridiculous. I understand that the peering deals from old will dissolve as they get more and more imbalanced. I am willing to accept that the cost of internet will likely increase as the peering deals start having a cost. But I do not accept the idea of letting them charge both sides full price for the privilege of using their network.
Both sides are not the same. Treating them as such is a mistake here.
-
@boomzilla Please enlighten me than.
What have I gotten so wrong about an ISP that has a bunch of peering deals that were originally written on the basis of almost no cost because data was considered to likely flow in equal amounts both ways. To where now those peering deals have been found to be extremely one sided and one side is feeling that they are not getting paid fairly?
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
But you also think "treat all traffic equally" is super simple.
It is, any router does that by default.
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I kind of want them to, now, just to fuck with you NN whiners.
I already have NN here. Enjoy your "innovation".
-
@masonwheeler
The article proves that Level 3 knew what Comcast's peering policy was when the took the Netflix deal, and tried to argue that because they do have access customers they weren't a CDN and shouldn't be subject to the paid peering.It also shows they recognized that there Level 3 had at least an implicit realization in the treatment of CDN traffic into access networks that the CDN traffic is paying in part because the access network has to bear the cost of moving the traffic from the CDN hotel to where the end user is:
[Level 3] tells me that it actually offered to give the necessary hardware to Comcast (at around $50,000 per port) and that it offered to do "cold-potato" routing deep into Comcast's network, dropping off streaming traffic near the customers who requested it, for instance.
From a technical perspective... Comcast and Level 3 were determining what traffic needed to be routed between each others' networks via BGP. BGP's base function is to assign each provider an ID number (the Autonomous System Number, or ASN), and then build a global list via P2P data exchanges of which ASNs control which IP network blocks, so that border routers can determine where to send traffic so that it passes through the lowest possible number of distinct AS's (autonomous systems - networks). There have been some recent extensions to BGP to allow network administrators to specify which return path they want other AS's to take when coming to them, but in 2010 those extensions weren't widely adopted, and it's possible that Comcast's network didn't support them yet (or they hadn't deployed BGP capable border routers at enough of their "local access" points yet to be able to make practical use of them).
If the same issue came up in 2017, Level 3's deep potato routing would probably be a pretty good option for Comcast to use. And in fact, Riot Games has built out an entire system of dedicated interconnection to ensure that traffic both to and from their fiber transit network enters access networks like Comcast's as close to the end customer as possible. But my suspicion is that in 2010, the only way Comcast could have made use of that would have been to effectively put Level 3's fiber "inside" their network as a dark-fiber leased link, which would either violate some of the general network security boundaries their network was designed around or make their internal network reliant on a 3rd party's fiber link (that they're currently getting "free of charge", but would give Level 3 leverage to charge for that at a later date).
Disclaimer: I'm speculating on possible technical reasons for Comcast not accepting Level 3's offer to route traffic to the local access areas instead of using a standard BGP handoff in a shared networking hotel. This speculation is based strictly on my knowledge of and experience with the technical limits of the BGP protocol, and I do not have any actual insight into what Comcast's actual network infrastructure looked like in 2010.
-
@Dragoon said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla Please enlighten me than.
What have I gotten so wrong about an ISP that has a bunch of peering deals that were originally written on the basis of almost no cost because data was considered to likely flow in equal amounts both ways. To where now those peering deals have been found to be extremely one sided and one side is feeling that they are not getting paid fairly?
As already mentioned, it's wrong to consider Comcast just an isp. Otherwise, what you're describing seems decently accurate. And to my mind would support Comcast's argument.
-
@boomzilla Fair point about Comcast as only an ISP.
-
@boomzilla Does Comcast route traffic between two other networks that doesn't include their own customers?
If no, then they're only an ISP.
-
@wharrgarbl said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I kind of want them to, now, just to fuck with you NN whiners.
I already have NN here. Enjoy your "innovation".
Like not having a data cap? I am!
-
@powerlord Yes.
-
@powerlord said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla Does Comcast route traffic between two other networks that doesn't include their own customers?
If no, then they're only an ISP.
I really suggest TFA posted up thread. As @wharrgarbl said, it seems pretty free of bias and there's a lot of detail there.
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@wharrgarbl said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I kind of want them to, now, just to fuck with you NN whiners.
I already have NN here. Enjoy your "innovation".
Like not having a data cap? I am!
You missed my post were I said data caps were banned here too
-
@wharrgarbl said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
You missed my post were I said data caps were banned here too
I did. I only remember you saying that you had data caps, so now I'm confused.
-
@boomzilla I like confusing people.
I thought there was a data cap, but it got quickly outlawed after the ISPs announced they would so it. (but not for mobile).
-
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@Captain
Comcast was asking Level 3 for paid settlement of their interconnection before Comcast would increase the (congested, bottlenecked) capacity between Comcast and Level 3, because the traffic pattern had changed to no longer meet the standard accepted pattern of a settlement free interconnection. Level 3 refused to pay the interconnection charge, and Netflix eventually asked for a direct connection because their customers were suffering from the congestion between Level 3 and Comcast. Comcast gave the same terms to Netflix - they weren't going to be a "equal amounts of traffic going both ways" connection that would qualify for settlement free interconnection, so Comcast required a paid settlement for the peering.Which was pretty much the dumbest thing ever. Comcast sits between millions of consumers and Level 3. John Doe, Comcast customer, sends a 10K request for a video, which Comcast sends to Level 3 for delivery to Netflix. Netflix sends back 1,000M of video, via Level 3 to Comcast. Got that down clearly?
Then Comcast says to Level 3, "We sent you 10K and you sent us 1,000M, so you should pay us for using all our bandwidth." I don't know which is greater: Comcast's greed, arrogance, or idiocy--all three are at epic levels.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
When the grocery store starts charging me and the butcher for it, we have a problem!
That's a bad analogy. A better one might be the post office (or any such shipping company).
The PO charges you a little bit to send a letter. You have to pay for a stamp. The more letters you send, the more stamps you have to buy, and the more you pay the PO. You can also send packages via the PO, but they cost more because they take up more space and might have special handling requirements. Other businesses can send letters or packages, and they pay the PO to move those around, too.
The Post Office might even sell premium services to businesses, which might include drop boxes, mail/package pick-ups at the business's own location, more frequent pick-up times, or even set up new, full/extension offices nearby.You can even buy something mail-order from a company. You have to pay the PO to mail your request, and in your order payment you have to include a shipping fee to the company, which takes it and pays the PO to carry your package to you.
Both ends had to pay the PO to get your package to you, but no one has a problem with that. Why then is it such a big deal when the ISP wants to do exactly the same thing?
-
@djls45 Companies already pay for their internet connection just like us consumers, so I'm not sure what part of your analogy is "a big deal" with respect to ISPs? I don't think anyone is suggesting that Netflix should have a free internet connection.
-
@LB_ Ah, I forgot a part of my analogy. Adding it to the post...
The "big deal" is that the Post Office in my example charges both ends for using their service, and charges more for better/more service, but NN folks get upset about "double premiums".
-
@CoyneTheDup Have peering agreements changed since the early 90s? You know, back when connections were symmetric because it just connected universities?
-
-
@djls45 As a supporter of Net Neutrality I think it's perfectly reasonable to charge more for a better internet connection as long as everyone has access to the same service plans. Maybe the analogy is confusing me.
-
@LB_ said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@djls45 As a supporter of Net Neutrality I think it's perfectly reasonable to charge more for a better internet connection as long as everyone has access to the same service plans. Maybe the analogy is confusing me.
That's how regular old capitalism works, though. Why would we need special laws to enforce it?
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
When the grocery store starts charging me and the butcher for it, we have a problem!
Then you have a problem
-
@djls45 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Why would we need special laws to enforce it?
Okay, I've clearly lost track of what's been getting said in this thread. What is this referring to?
-
@djls45 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
That's how regular old capitalism works, though. Why would we need special laws to enforce it?
Because free-market economic principles (ie. "regular old capitalism") break down in the absence of freedom in the marketplace. When there is little or no competition, monopoly economic principles take hold instead, and they require special treatment by the law in order to prevent rampant monopoly abuse.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@djls45 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
That's how regular old capitalism works, though. Why would we need special laws to enforce it?
Because free-market economic principles (ie. "regular old capitalism") break down in the absence of freedom in the marketplace. When there is little or no competition, monopoly economic principles take hold instead, and they require special treatment by the law in order to prevent rampant monopoly abuse.
It's not like a monopoly can just jack the prices sky-high without losing customers. There's a limit to how much they can charge people before they start losing money. Most of the Internet is entertainment, which won't kill people to forgo.
And really, would it be such a bad thing if a lot of people couldn't afford access to their favorite social media platforms?
-
@djls45 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
It's not like a monopoly can just jack the prices sky-high without losing customers.
Yes, they can, and they already have. In the USA we pay approximately twice as much for broadband access as they do in South Korea--and the Koreans get around 8x faster speeds! Most analysts attribute this discrepancy mostly (not entirely, but the lion's share of it) to the minimal-to-nonexistent competition in the US Internet market.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Yes, they can, and they already have. In the USA we pay approximately twice as much for broadband access as they do in South Korea--and the Koreans get around 8x faster speeds! Most analysts attribute this discrepancy mostly (not entirely, but the lion's share of it) to the minimal-to-nonexistent competition in the US Internet market.
Yes, but they use IE over their connections so I think we're ahead.
-
@djls45 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
It's not like a monopoly can just jack the prices sky-high without losing customers.
While true, where the graph plateaus depends heavily on the commodity that is being monopolized. In this case, the ceiling is incredibly high.
Further, it isn't just that they are monopolies, they are often enforced monopolies. With no avenue for an outside entity to compete. Which is counter to capitalism in every way.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@djls45 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
It's not like a monopoly can just jack the prices sky-high without losing customers.
Yes, they can, and they already have. In the USA we pay approximately twice as much for broadband access as they do in South Korea--and the Koreans get around 8x faster speeds! Most analysts attribute this discrepancy mostly (not entirely, but the lion's share of it) to the minimal-to-nonexistent competition in the US Internet market.
How much you pay?
-
GOP Busted Using Cable Lobbyist Net Neutrality Talking Points
News: The GOP has been caught using talking points provided by the cable industry in their ongoing assault against net neutrality. Last week, as the FCC majority was voting to begin
-
@djls45 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
It's not like a monopoly can just jack the prices sky-high without losing customers. There's a limit to how much they can charge people before they start losing money. Most of the Internet is entertainment, which won't kill people to forgo.
Not to mention that anti-trust laws were supposed to prevent this sort of thing, so why not enforce those better instead of adding new laws?
-
@Dragoon said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@djls45 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
It's not like a monopoly can just jack the prices sky-high without losing customers.
While true, where the graph plateaus depends heavily on the commodity that is being monopolized. In this case, the ceiling is incredibly high.
Further, it isn't just that they are monopolies, they are often enforced monopolies. With no avenue for an outside entity to compete. Which is counter to capitalism in every way.
But it's not like internet access is a necessity. It's mostly entertainment for most people, so it's not like a monopoly's losing those customers will cause harm to society.
-
@djls45
What kind of fucked up logic is this?Oh its fine if you kill all those homeless people, they weren't helping society.
-
@wharrgarbl "Busted." Did anyone get Destroyed?
-
@Dragoon said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@djls45
What kind of fucked up logic is this?Oh its fine if you kill all those homeless people, they weren't helping society.
-
@Dragoon said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@djls45
What kind of fucked up logic is this?Oh its fine if you kill all those homeless people, they weren't helping society.
What? Where did I say that?
-
@wharrgarbl It varies from region to region. In PA I was paying Comcast somewhere around $70/month for Internet. Here, I'm not actually sure how much it costs, because I get Internet access as part of a "media bundle" with my apartment lease. The bundle includes Internet from a local provider and TV from Dish Network (which I don't use but can't un-bundle) and costs upwards of $100/month.
-
@djls45 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
But it's not like internet access is a necessity. It's mostly entertainment for most people, so it's not like a monopoly's losing those customers will cause harm to society.
I'm not going to take my response as far as @Dragoon did, but... did you seriously just say that?
Weasel your way back out of those "mostly"s and look at the rest of it, and there's plenty of stuff left over that people have a very hard time living without in modern society!
-
@masonwheeler
You and your metered responses. pfft!
-
@djls45 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@LB_ Ah, I forgot a part of my analogy. Adding it to the post...
The "big deal" is that the Post Office in my example charges both ends for using their service, and charges more for better/more service, but NN folks get upset about "double premiums".
I wouldn't know. I only know what makes sense. Amazon needs product delivered to its warehouses, and it doesn't make sense for Amazon to charge the trucking company that brings the goods because its trucks arrive full and leave empty.
-
Don't Be Fooled by the Comcast PR Machine: It Has Always Opposed
Years of lobbying and litigation has made it clear Comcast wants to turn the Internet into a toll road and run the booth If you have signed onto Twitter and have been following the network neutrality
-
Net Neutrality has harmed ISPs so much that they're bragging about all the progress they've made since it was put in place.
...wait a sec!
Cable Lobby Again Makes It Clear That Net Neutrality Didn't Hurt Broadband Investment
So we’ve long noted how giant ISPs like Comcast have repeatedly tried to claim that the FCC’s fairly modest 2015 net neutrality rules utterly devastated broadband industry investment. T…
-
@masonwheeler So now you're in favor of wrong policies when they help the capitalist pigs?
-
@boomzilla So you don't understand the difference between "help" and "somehow failed to cause the debilitating harm that the capitalist pigs stridently claimed would invariably result from this policy," and you wonder why I accuse you of
-grade reading comprehension?
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla So you don't understand the difference between "help" and "somehow failed to cause the debilitating harm that the capitalist pigs stridently claimed would invariably result from this policy," and you wonder why I accuse you of
-grade reading comprehension?Nothing you wrote is correct. It's perfectly clear why you confuse "Disagrees with @masonwheeler," as can't read or argues in bad faith.
-
More than 40 ISPs Across the Country Tell Chairman Pai to Not Repeal
Many Small ISPs Support Real Net Neutrality One excuse FCC Chairman Ajit Pai regularly offers to explain his effort to gut net neutrality protections is the claim that open Internet rules have harmed
-
@djls45 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
The PO charges you a little bit to send a letter. You have to pay for a stamp. The more letters you send, the more stamps you have to buy, and the more you pay the PO. You can also send packages via the PO, but they cost more because they take up more space and might have special handling requirements. Other businesses can send letters or packages, and they pay the PO to move those around, too.
The Post Office might even sell premium services to businesses, which might include drop boxes, mail/package pick-ups at the business's own location, more frequent pick-up times, or even set up new, full/extension offices nearby.But the Post Office [or any other similar company] can NOT charge more/less to different companies for the same services (at the same level of consumption). Nor can they charge more/less based on the content of the letter or package (assuming same size/weight/safety/handling).
-
@thecpuwizard said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@djls45 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
The PO charges you a little bit to send a letter. You have to pay for a stamp. The more letters you send, the more stamps you have to buy, and the more you pay the PO. You can also send packages via the PO, but they cost more because they take up more space and might have special handling requirements. Other businesses can send letters or packages, and they pay the PO to move those around, too.
The Post Office might even sell premium services to businesses, which might include drop boxes, mail/package pick-ups at the business's own location, more frequent pick-up times, or even set up new, full/extension offices nearby.But the Post Office [or any other similar company] can NOT charge more/less to different companies for the same services (at the same level of consumption). Nor can they charge more/less based on the content of the letter or package (assuming same size/weight/safety/handling).
This is why I keep telling people, Net Neutrality doesn't end speed lanes from your ISP.
It ends extra charges and slow down from middlemen snooping your packets.
Netflix will still have to pay more if they want more bandwidth, just only to their direct ISP and not to third parties in the middle.
None of this prevents the "networks" that the alarmists are showing. It just prevents your ISP from creating "networks" of what they will deliver to you.
You still have to pay service fees for services on the internet. You still have to pay Starz to access their content. You just don't have to pay your ISP in addition.
Slotting fee - Wikipedia
