Author Topic: Net Neutrality - I don't get it  (Read 30947 times)

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #50 on: April 29, 2014, 09:09:20 AM »
I'm trying to tell you: that's exactly opposite of what was happening.

Comcast did not purposefully slow down Netflix's traffic.
Comcast ceased purposefully speeding up Netflix's traffic.

Does that make sense?

It makes sense.  From what I read, that is not the case.

Either way though, it's irrelevant

Because it's not a case against net neutrality.

If Comcast stopped speeding up Netflix's traffic because of some agreement ending, and that meant Netflix needed to pay because they couldn't keep up on their end, that's fine.

As long as Comcast is delivering me the X bytes I was promised for $Y at Z speeds.  I don't care who ends up having to upgrade what.  When MMM site lags and they have to upgrade the server, he pays.  If Netflix is bottlenecked and has to pay for peering, fine.

As long as the ISP delivers me the packets they contractually agreed to, without discriminating based on that traffic.

Even if Comcast wasn't slowing Netflix down, that doesn't matter.  As long as they never do so.  I.e. net neutrality.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #51 on: April 29, 2014, 09:11:59 AM »
I absolutely agree.  And that's what net neutrality ensures.  We each pay for what we use.

As long as you are talking about data transferred not data rate of transfer that is correct.

Either.  Whatever the ISP and customer agree to contractually.  But if we've agreed to X bytes for $Y at Z speeds, deliver it.  Regardless of the content.

And if I'm paying double Y because I use double X bytes (because I stream Netflix and you don't*), but we're both going at Z speeds because that's what was promised, I expect the ISP to deliver, because they promised to do so, and if they can't, they need to upgrade their infrastructure and/or stop making promises they can't deliver on.

That fits perfectly with net neutrality, ISPs as common carriers.

*I believe that's the exact scenario you wanted: people paying for what they use, so you don't subsidize someone else's netflix viewing.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #52 on: April 29, 2014, 09:21:17 AM »
I'm trying to tell you: that's exactly opposite of what was happening.

Comcast did not purposefully slow down Netflix's traffic.
Comcast ceased purposefully speeding up Netflix's traffic.

Does that make sense?

It makes sense.  From what I read, that is not the case.

Either way though, it's irrelevant

Because it's not a case against net neutrality.

If Comcast stopped speeding up Netflix's traffic because of some agreement ending, and that meant Netflix needed to pay because they couldn't keep up on their end, that's fine.

As long as Comcast is delivering me the X bytes I was promised for $Y at Z speeds.  I don't care who ends up having to upgrade what.  When MMM site lags and they have to upgrade the server, he pays.  If Netflix is bottlenecked and has to pay for peering, fine.

As long as the ISP delivers me the packets they contractually agreed to, without discriminating based on that traffic.

Even if Comcast wasn't slowing Netflix down, that doesn't matter.  As long as they never do so.  I.e. net neutrality.

Purposefully speeding up one slice of traffic is by its very nature NOT net neutrality. 

See the bolded part above:  That is exactly what the whole Comcast/Netflix thing was about: Paying for peering.  That is what is being said is in violation of Net Neutrality.  If you really agree with that statement, then you are "on Comcast's side" in the argument.

I get really surprised that people find Comcast to be the bad guys here and not Netflix.  Netflix is the one whose entire business model is based on not being neutral.  (I personally like Netflix... but that's just an aside.)


matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #53 on: April 29, 2014, 09:38:42 AM »
I'm trying to tell you: that's exactly opposite of what was happening.

Comcast did not purposefully slow down Netflix's traffic.
Comcast ceased purposefully speeding up Netflix's traffic.

Does that make sense?

It makes sense.  From what I read, that is not the case.

Either way though, it's irrelevant

Because it's not a case against net neutrality.

If Comcast stopped speeding up Netflix's traffic because of some agreement ending, and that meant Netflix needed to pay because they couldn't keep up on their end, that's fine.

As long as Comcast is delivering me the X bytes I was promised for $Y at Z speeds.  I don't care who ends up having to upgrade what.  When MMM site lags and they have to upgrade the server, he pays.  If Netflix is bottlenecked and has to pay for peering, fine.

As long as the ISP delivers me the packets they contractually agreed to, without discriminating based on that traffic.

Even if Comcast wasn't slowing Netflix down, that doesn't matter.  As long as they never do so.  I.e. net neutrality.

Purposefully speeding up one slice of traffic is by its very nature NOT net neutrality. 

See the bolded part above:  That is exactly what the whole Comcast/Netflix thing was about: Paying for peering.  That is what is being said is in violation of Net Neutrality.  If you really agree with that statement, then you are "on Comcast's side" in the argument.

I get really surprised that people find Comcast to be the bad guys here and not Netflix.  Netflix is the one whose entire business model is based on not being neutral.  (I personally like Netflix... but that's just an aside.)

I don't give a crap who's at fault. I'm the customer asking for data to be delivered at a specific speed. If it's Netflix at fault, charge me more for Netflix and fix your shit. If it's Comcast at fault, charge me more and fix your shit. Speeding up one slice of traffic in order to deliver it to me as you promised is net neutrality as now I'm getting exactly what I'm paying for. The moment you choose not to send it to me the way you promised and are possibly intentionally holding back on doing so because it's difficult or costs money or is a conflict to other interests means that they don't understand what that money I send them is for each month.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #54 on: April 29, 2014, 09:43:35 AM »
I'm trying to tell you: that's exactly opposite of what was happening.

Comcast did not purposefully slow down Netflix's traffic.
Comcast ceased purposefully speeding up Netflix's traffic.

Does that make sense?

It makes sense.  From what I read, that is not the case.

Either way though, it's irrelevant

Because it's not a case against net neutrality.

If Comcast stopped speeding up Netflix's traffic because of some agreement ending, and that meant Netflix needed to pay because they couldn't keep up on their end, that's fine.

As long as Comcast is delivering me the X bytes I was promised for $Y at Z speeds.  I don't care who ends up having to upgrade what.  When MMM site lags and they have to upgrade the server, he pays.  If Netflix is bottlenecked and has to pay for peering, fine.

As long as the ISP delivers me the packets they contractually agreed to, without discriminating based on that traffic.

Even if Comcast wasn't slowing Netflix down, that doesn't matter.  As long as they never do so.  I.e. net neutrality.

Purposefully speeding up one slice of traffic is by its very nature NOT net neutrality. 

See the bolded part above:  That is exactly what the whole Comcast/Netflix thing was about: Paying for peering.  That is what is being said is in violation of Net Neutrality.  If you really agree with that statement, then you are "on Comcast's side" in the argument.

I get really surprised that people find Comcast to be the bad guys here and not Netflix.  Netflix is the one whose entire business model is based on not being neutral.  (I personally like Netflix... but that's just an aside.)

No, no, no.

If the bottleneck is with Comcast, they need to pay and upgrade.  If it's with Netflix, they need to pay and upgrade.  Peering is one way to do so.

They aren't paying to speed up traffic (or, alternatively, slow down anyone else's) any more than MMM is "paying to speed up traffic" when he pays for more bandwidth for his server.

If Comcast is delivering my packets at the Z speed we agreed to, regardless of content, and Netflix needs to pay to upgrade their infrastructure to deliver at that speed, that's fine, and doesn't violate Net Neutrality.

If Netflix was paying to boost above that speed, yes.  Preferential treatment would be against Net Neutrality.  But if Netflix is having to pay to boost their speed in order to not bottleneck on their end, and the ISP is serving what was promised, and netflix ends up serving the same speed as everything else and there's no preferential treatment, there's no violation of net neutrality.  It's no different than netflix paying to upgrade a server.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #55 on: April 29, 2014, 09:51:06 AM »


Purposefully speeding up one slice of traffic is by its very nature NOT net neutrality. 

See the bolded part above:  That is exactly what the whole Comcast/Netflix thing was about: Paying for peering.  That is what is being said is in violation of Net Neutrality.  If you really agree with that statement, then you are "on Comcast's side" in the argument.

I get really surprised that people find Comcast to be the bad guys here and not Netflix.  Netflix is the one whose entire business model is based on not being neutral.  (I personally like Netflix... but that's just an aside.)

No, no, no.

If the bottleneck is with Comcast, they need to pay and upgrade.  If it's with Netflix, they need to pay and upgrade.  Peering is one way to do so.

They aren't paying to speed up traffic (or, alternatively, slow down anyone else's) any more than MMM is "paying to speed up traffic" when he pays for more bandwidth for his server.

If Comcast is delivering my packets at the Z speed we agreed to, regardless of content, and Netflix needs to pay to upgrade their infrastructure to deliver at that speed, that's fine, and doesn't violate Net Neutrality.

If Netflix was paying to boost above that speed, yes.  Preferential treatment would be against Net Neutrality.  But if Netflix is having to pay to boost their speed in order to not bottleneck on their end, and the ISP is serving what was promised, and netflix ends up serving the same speed as everything else and there's no preferential treatment, there's no violation of net neutrality.  It's no different than netflix paying to upgrade a server.

I assure you: this is entirely what the Comcast v Netflix kerfuffle is about.  The peering contract ended.  Comcast asked for money to reinstate it.  Netflix said no.  Comcast turned off the port and the specialized caches. 

Pay-for-peering is the issue.  This was the test case.   And I agree that its no different than paying to upgrade a server... but Netflix does not.

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3681
  • Location: Germany
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #56 on: April 29, 2014, 09:53:59 AM »

airlines will eventually charge more for a seat on the end and less in the middle if some aren't already doing it.  hotels charge for city view, ocean view.  darn, states now have pay and no-pay lanes on highways.  i could go on and on.

yet they want the internet to remain equal for all?  strange!

The difference is that YOU can decide if you want to use that hotel (or whatever else). But there is only one internet. No Hotel can charge you if you drive a way-to-big car (unfortunately? :D) when you get there. Without net neutrality, your ISP can.  Or make the hotel effectively anaivailable to you (only from 10am-11am only by feet)

Lets get an exapmple from here in Germany: Telekom is the only big carrier that does not do "free" peering traffic to all the other carriers. So it could mean that your data takes 100ms to 99% of carriers - and 10 secs to Telekom. Video? Gaming?
On the other Hand, the other carriers cannot afford to not pay Telekom - its the biggest carrier there is, resulting from old state monopol (as in most countries).
If Telekom get a gaming website, and slows down the games of all others (except they pay), thats bad for all (Except Telekom). Already tried with video. Own video fast, other video slow - same "weight" of item.


Or put it basically: If A requests data, Why does B charge C instead of A?

Quote
A comparison is more like "what if the electric company charged more for people that used more electricity."
So if you use more electricity, the power plant gets to pay it?
That has to be some US speciality. Here in Germany I pay the "Netzentgelte".

Quote
I'm the customer asking for data to be delivered at a specific speed. If it's Netflix at fault, charge me more for Netflix and fix your shit. If it's Comcast at fault, charge me more and fix your shit.
Thats the core.
If A hosts something, A has to pay for his side of traffic. If B asks traffic, B has to pay for her GBs.
That has nothing to do with netflix (since it is one case I dont know about).
If A does only pay for 1GB/s and users request 2GB/s, then the users get only half of A. Like any other webside that is overloaded it gets sluggish.
That is "net neutral". You pay for the amount. Not the content.
Net Neutrality is broken, when A has to pay more (or for that matter less) then also-hosting D, E, F. Especially if video service D has to pay more to ISP because ISP owns video service F.
If the end of B is overloaded, any traffic slows down.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #57 on: April 29, 2014, 09:59:26 AM »


Purposefully speeding up one slice of traffic is by its very nature NOT net neutrality. 

See the bolded part above:  That is exactly what the whole Comcast/Netflix thing was about: Paying for peering.  That is what is being said is in violation of Net Neutrality.  If you really agree with that statement, then you are "on Comcast's side" in the argument.

I get really surprised that people find Comcast to be the bad guys here and not Netflix.  Netflix is the one whose entire business model is based on not being neutral.  (I personally like Netflix... but that's just an aside.)

No, no, no.

If the bottleneck is with Comcast, they need to pay and upgrade.  If it's with Netflix, they need to pay and upgrade.  Peering is one way to do so.

They aren't paying to speed up traffic (or, alternatively, slow down anyone else's) any more than MMM is "paying to speed up traffic" when he pays for more bandwidth for his server.

If Comcast is delivering my packets at the Z speed we agreed to, regardless of content, and Netflix needs to pay to upgrade their infrastructure to deliver at that speed, that's fine, and doesn't violate Net Neutrality.

If Netflix was paying to boost above that speed, yes.  Preferential treatment would be against Net Neutrality.  But if Netflix is having to pay to boost their speed in order to not bottleneck on their end, and the ISP is serving what was promised, and netflix ends up serving the same speed as everything else and there's no preferential treatment, there's no violation of net neutrality.  It's no different than netflix paying to upgrade a server.

I assure you: this is entirely what the Comcast v Netflix kerfuffle is about.  The peering contract ended.  Comcast asked for money to reinstate it.  Netflix said no.  Comcast turned off the port and the specialized caches. 

Pay-for-peering is the issue.  This was the test case.   And I agree that its no different than paying to upgrade a server... but Netflix does not.

But I don't care about that dispute.  As I said, it's irrelevant to the overall topic of Net Neutrality.

Whoever is in the wrong and needs to upgrade their shit doesn't matter to me, as long as the ISP is delivering what they promised regardless of what that content is.

I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #58 on: April 29, 2014, 10:08:33 AM »

But I don't care about that dispute.  As I said, it's irrelevant to the overall topic of Net Neutrality.

Whoever is in the wrong and needs to upgrade their shit doesn't matter to me, as long as the ISP is delivering what they promised regardless of what that content is.

There are only 2 real cases in the US where people have screamed "that's not net neutrality".  Neither have had anything to do with content.  Both were Comcast.

1.  Aforementioned Netflix dispute (test case for pay-for-peering)
2.  Peer-to-peer slowdown - where one protocol run by a small percentage of people pretty much broke the internet.  This is mostly fixed by bandwidth caps today.


Insanity

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1021
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #59 on: April 29, 2014, 10:11:29 AM »
Whatever the ISP and customer agree to contractually.  But if we've agreed to X bytes for $Y at Z speeds, deliver it.  Regardless of the content.

And if I'm paying double Y because I use double X bytes (because I stream Netflix and you don't*), but we're both going at Z speeds because that's what was promised, I expect the ISP to deliver, because they promised to do so, and if they can't, they need to upgrade their infrastructure and/or stop making promises they can't deliver on.

That fits perfectly with net neutrality, ISPs as common carriers.

*I believe that's the exact scenario you wanted: people paying for what they use, so you don't subsidize someone else's netflix viewing.

But this is where we differ.   As a customer, if Comcast increases my rate because they need to upgrade infrastructure to support only a segment of their population, then I am being charged for services that I am not going to be using.  So, throughput is different then data usage from that regard. 

Otherwise, I haven no problem with it.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9922
  • Registered member
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #60 on: April 29, 2014, 10:20:56 AM »


Purposefully speeding up one slice of traffic is by its very nature NOT net neutrality. 

See the bolded part above:  That is exactly what the whole Comcast/Netflix thing was about: Paying for peering.  That is what is being said is in violation of Net Neutrality.  If you really agree with that statement, then you are "on Comcast's side" in the argument.

I get really surprised that people find Comcast to be the bad guys here and not Netflix.  Netflix is the one whose entire business model is based on not being neutral.  (I personally like Netflix... but that's just an aside.)

No, no, no.

If the bottleneck is with Comcast, they need to pay and upgrade.  If it's with Netflix, they need to pay and upgrade.  Peering is one way to do so.

They aren't paying to speed up traffic (or, alternatively, slow down anyone else's) any more than MMM is "paying to speed up traffic" when he pays for more bandwidth for his server.

If Comcast is delivering my packets at the Z speed we agreed to, regardless of content, and Netflix needs to pay to upgrade their infrastructure to deliver at that speed, that's fine, and doesn't violate Net Neutrality.

If Netflix was paying to boost above that speed, yes.  Preferential treatment would be against Net Neutrality.  But if Netflix is having to pay to boost their speed in order to not bottleneck on their end, and the ISP is serving what was promised, and netflix ends up serving the same speed as everything else and there's no preferential treatment, there's no violation of net neutrality.  It's no different than netflix paying to upgrade a server.

I assure you: this is entirely what the Comcast v Netflix kerfuffle is about.  The peering contract ended.  Comcast asked for money to reinstate it.  Netflix said no.  Comcast turned off the port and the specialized caches. 

Pay-for-peering is the issue.  This was the test case.   And I agree that its no different than paying to upgrade a server... but Netflix does not.

But I don't care about that dispute.  As I said, it's irrelevant to the overall topic of Net Neutrality.

Whoever is in the wrong and needs to upgrade their shit doesn't matter to me, as long as the ISP is delivering what they promised regardless of what that content is.

Finally it comes out:  When Spork condescendingly said "you don't understand net neutrality," he meant "you don't know all the details of Netflix v. Comcast."  But of course, that case is only illustrative of the net neutrality issues, it is not the end all and be all of net neutrality. 

However, there's a larger issue even with Netflix v. Comcast, and that is monopolistic abuse of market power.  I don't know the details of the Netflix peering arrangement, but Spork has implied it was free, so I'll assume that is true.

If Netflix had, from the beginning, had to pay their tier provider for the full bandwidth they used, then they would already have the infrastructure in place to deliver their content (or would have failed).  Comcast gave them free peering (not out of altruism), thus distorting the market.  They got Netflix hooked on the peering, so of course there was no reason for Netflix to upgrade it's own tier uplink contract.  Then, Comcast says "hey I see your contract is up -- lets renew for this huge ransom."  That's Comcast exercising it's monopoly power. 

Of course cable/internet has been (and mostly still is) a natural monopoly -- it doesn't make sense to dig up the streets every time you want a new cable or internet provider.  That's why we have to regulate abuse like this (which I believe Spork also agreed to generally above).  Cable monopolists should not be allowed to act as classical "free market" entities (for example, by using strategic contractual ninjitsu to put tiny competitors in a position where whey have no choice but to pay up).  That's exactly what it sounds like Comcast did -- they made it so Netflix had no choice but to pay up.  But they have all the power -- for many people, if you want Netflix, you have to go through Comcast (or maybe one other provider).  The opposite is not true -- if you want video, there are many sources.

In conclusion, I support net neutrality.  If ISPs want to do caching, cohosting, etc. for free, because it allows them to meet their obligations to their customers, that's fine.  As long as the cached and cohosted services don't have priority over MMM web pages on the ISPs local network, it's neutral.  Nobody is saying that packets with more hops can't take longer, but at each hop, priority should be equal. 

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #61 on: April 29, 2014, 10:22:38 AM »
Whatever the ISP and customer agree to contractually.  But if we've agreed to X bytes for $Y at Z speeds, deliver it.  Regardless of the content.

And if I'm paying double Y because I use double X bytes (because I stream Netflix and you don't*), but we're both going at Z speeds because that's what was promised, I expect the ISP to deliver, because they promised to do so, and if they can't, they need to upgrade their infrastructure and/or stop making promises they can't deliver on.

That fits perfectly with net neutrality, ISPs as common carriers.

*I believe that's the exact scenario you wanted: people paying for what they use, so you don't subsidize someone else's netflix viewing.

But this is where we differ.   As a customer, if Comcast increases my rate because they need to upgrade infrastructure to support only a segment of their population, then I am being charged for services that I am not going to be using.  So, throughput is different then data usage from that regard. 

Otherwise, I haven no problem with it.

You also have to ask: Throughput to where?   Networks can be optimized for client-server or peer-to-peer  -- or both -- depending on cost.  And just because you have unlimited bandwidth "to the internet" doesn't mean "to all sites".   

The ISP is going to meet their obligations if you can run a speed test and get desired results.  That doesn't mean "watch a movie from provider X".  Nor does it necessarily mean run a P2P server 24hours a day, 7 days a week.

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #62 on: April 29, 2014, 10:25:20 AM »
Whatever the ISP and customer agree to contractually.  But if we've agreed to X bytes for $Y at Z speeds, deliver it.  Regardless of the content.

And if I'm paying double Y because I use double X bytes (because I stream Netflix and you don't*), but we're both going at Z speeds because that's what was promised, I expect the ISP to deliver, because they promised to do so, and if they can't, they need to upgrade their infrastructure and/or stop making promises they can't deliver on.

That fits perfectly with net neutrality, ISPs as common carriers.

*I believe that's the exact scenario you wanted: people paying for what they use, so you don't subsidize someone else's netflix viewing.

But this is where we differ.   As a customer, if Comcast increases my rate because they need to upgrade infrastructure to support only a segment of their population, then I am being charged for services that I am not going to be using.  So, throughput is different then data usage from that regard. 

Otherwise, I haven no problem with it.

You also have to ask: Throughput to where?   Networks can be optimized for client-server or peer-to-peer  -- or both -- depending on cost.  And just because you have unlimited bandwidth "to the internet" doesn't mean "to all sites".   

The ISP is going to meet their obligations if you can run a speed test and get desired results.  That doesn't mean "watch a movie from provider X".  Nor does it necessarily mean run a P2P server 24hours a day, 7 days a week.

I think that's bullshit. They haven't met their obligation if they have the capability to provide data at the speeds promised, they actually have to do it consistently for all things I use their service for or they are no longer holding up their end of the deal.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9922
  • Registered member
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #63 on: April 29, 2014, 10:25:33 AM »
Whatever the ISP and customer agree to contractually.  But if we've agreed to X bytes for $Y at Z speeds, deliver it.  Regardless of the content.

And if I'm paying double Y because I use double X bytes (because I stream Netflix and you don't*), but we're both going at Z speeds because that's what was promised, I expect the ISP to deliver, because they promised to do so, and if they can't, they need to upgrade their infrastructure and/or stop making promises they can't deliver on.

That fits perfectly with net neutrality, ISPs as common carriers.

*I believe that's the exact scenario you wanted: people paying for what they use, so you don't subsidize someone else's netflix viewing.

But this is where we differ.   As a customer, if Comcast increases my rate because they need to upgrade infrastructure to support only a segment of their population, then I am being charged for services that I am not going to be using.  So, throughput is different then data usage from that regard. 

Otherwise, I haven no problem with it.

Yeah, you know what pisses me off?  Airlines are required to fly to dumb places in the middle of the country -- I never fly there!  It's raising my flight costs!  Good thing there's no social benefit to a robust national air travel network.

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #64 on: April 29, 2014, 10:29:52 AM »
Finally it comes out:  When Spork condescendingly said "you don't understand net neutrality," he meant "you don't know all the details of Netflix v. Comcast."  But of course, that case is only illustrative of the net neutrality issues, it is not the end all and be all of net neutrality. 

You know: if it came across that way, that's on me.  My apologies.  Not my intent.

However, there's a larger issue even with Netflix v. Comcast, and that is monopolistic abuse of market power.  I don't know the details of the Netflix peering arrangement, but Spork has implied it was free, so I'll assume that is true.


I've never been a fan of government mandated monopolies.  I cannot disagree.


Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #65 on: April 29, 2014, 10:32:40 AM »

You also have to ask: Throughput to where?   Networks can be optimized for client-server or peer-to-peer  -- or both -- depending on cost.  And just because you have unlimited bandwidth "to the internet" doesn't mean "to all sites".   

The ISP is going to meet their obligations if you can run a speed test and get desired results.  That doesn't mean "watch a movie from provider X".  Nor does it necessarily mean run a P2P server 24hours a day, 7 days a week.

I think that's bullshit. They haven't met their obligation if they have the capability to provide data at the speeds promised, they actually have to do it consistently for all things I use their service for or they are no longer holding up their end of the deal.

Which part? 

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #66 on: April 29, 2014, 10:46:57 AM »

You also have to ask: Throughput to where?   Networks can be optimized for client-server or peer-to-peer  -- or both -- depending on cost.  And just because you have unlimited bandwidth "to the internet" doesn't mean "to all sites".   

The ISP is going to meet their obligations if you can run a speed test and get desired results.  That doesn't mean "watch a movie from provider X".  Nor does it necessarily mean run a P2P server 24hours a day, 7 days a week.

I think that's bullshit. They haven't met their obligation if they have the capability to provide data at the speeds promised, they actually have to do it consistently for all things I use their service for or they are no longer holding up their end of the deal.

Which part?

That ISP's just need to be able to pass speed tests.

*Edit* I realize your question could be to which part of the deal as well. The part of the deal that says I'll give you X speed up to Y amount of data for Z dollars.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2014, 10:52:38 AM by matchewed »

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #67 on: April 29, 2014, 10:47:08 AM »

But I don't care about that dispute.  As I said, it's irrelevant to the overall topic of Net Neutrality.

Whoever is in the wrong and needs to upgrade their shit doesn't matter to me, as long as the ISP is delivering what they promised regardless of what that content is.

There are only 2 real cases in the US where people have screamed "that's not net neutrality".  Neither have had anything to do with content.  Both were Comcast.

That's fine.  People misunderstanding net neutrality or not doesn't mean it shouldn't be enforced. Net neutrality is a good thing, regardless of what happened in some Comcast or Netflix incident.

Whatever the ISP and customer agree to contractually.  But if we've agreed to X bytes for $Y at Z speeds, deliver it.  Regardless of the content.

And if I'm paying double Y because I use double X bytes (because I stream Netflix and you don't*), but we're both going at Z speeds because that's what was promised, I expect the ISP to deliver, because they promised to do so, and if they can't, they need to upgrade their infrastructure and/or stop making promises they can't deliver on.

That fits perfectly with net neutrality, ISPs as common carriers.

*I believe that's the exact scenario you wanted: people paying for what they use, so you don't subsidize someone else's netflix viewing.

But this is where we differ.   As a customer, if Comcast increases my rate because they need to upgrade infrastructure to support only a segment of their population, then I am being charged for services that I am not going to be using.  So, throughput is different then data usage from that regard. 

Otherwise, I haven no problem with it.

Then that segment of the population will pay for it via their increased usage.

Whatever the ISP and customer agree to contractually.  But if we've agreed to X bytes for $Y at Z speeds, deliver it.  Regardless of the content.

And if I'm paying double Y because I use double X bytes (because I stream Netflix and you don't*), but we're both going at Z speeds because that's what was promised, I expect the ISP to deliver, because they promised to do so, and if they can't, they need to upgrade their infrastructure and/or stop making promises they can't deliver on.

That fits perfectly with net neutrality, ISPs as common carriers.

*I believe that's the exact scenario you wanted: people paying for what they use, so you don't subsidize someone else's netflix viewing.

But this is where we differ.   As a customer, if Comcast increases my rate because they need to upgrade infrastructure to support only a segment of their population, then I am being charged for services that I am not going to be using.  So, throughput is different then data usage from that regard. 

Otherwise, I haven no problem with it.

You also have to ask: Throughput to where?   Networks can be optimized for client-server or peer-to-peer  -- or both -- depending on cost.  And just because you have unlimited bandwidth "to the internet" doesn't mean "to all sites".   

The ISP is going to meet their obligations if you can run a speed test and get desired results.  That doesn't mean "watch a movie from provider X".  Nor does it necessarily mean run a P2P server 24hours a day, 7 days a week.

I think that's bullshit. They haven't met their obligation if they have the capability to provide data at the speeds promised, they actually have to do it consistently for all things I use their service for or they are no longer holding up their end of the deal.

Completely agree.

An ISP being able to meet a speed test (that they may or may not have rigged) at one point in time doesn't mean they're meeting what they promised.  They have to be able to consistently do so.

And if 24/7 gaming or netflix or hosting a server is within the terms of service you agreed to, yes, they do have to provide that.  Or they need to change their pricing model and strategy.  Charge the people doing those activities.  But don't allow preferential treatment of certain types of data or not.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #68 on: April 29, 2014, 11:07:01 AM »

You also have to ask: Throughput to where?   Networks can be optimized for client-server or peer-to-peer  -- or both -- depending on cost.  And just because you have unlimited bandwidth "to the internet" doesn't mean "to all sites".   

The ISP is going to meet their obligations if you can run a speed test and get desired results.  That doesn't mean "watch a movie from provider X".  Nor does it necessarily mean run a P2P server 24hours a day, 7 days a week.

I think that's bullshit. They haven't met their obligation if they have the capability to provide data at the speeds promised, they actually have to do it consistently for all things I use their service for or they are no longer holding up their end of the deal.

Which part?

That ISP's just need to be able to pass speed tests.

*Edit* I realize your question could be to which part of the deal as well. The part of the deal that says I'll give you X speed up to Y amount of data for Z dollars.

So generally speed tests go to servers that are off-net.  In other words: once you get there, it's out of your control.  You can only fix bottle necks inside your own network.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9922
  • Registered member
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #69 on: April 29, 2014, 11:12:57 AM »

You also have to ask: Throughput to where?   Networks can be optimized for client-server or peer-to-peer  -- or both -- depending on cost.  And just because you have unlimited bandwidth "to the internet" doesn't mean "to all sites".   

The ISP is going to meet their obligations if you can run a speed test and get desired results.  That doesn't mean "watch a movie from provider X".  Nor does it necessarily mean run a P2P server 24hours a day, 7 days a week.

I think that's bullshit. They haven't met their obligation if they have the capability to provide data at the speeds promised, they actually have to do it consistently for all things I use their service for or they are no longer holding up their end of the deal.

Which part?

That ISP's just need to be able to pass speed tests.

*Edit* I realize your question could be to which part of the deal as well. The part of the deal that says I'll give you X speed up to Y amount of data for Z dollars.

So generally speed tests go to servers that are off-net.  In other words: once you get there, it's out of your control.  You can only fix bottle necks inside your own network.

As they should.

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #70 on: April 29, 2014, 11:15:37 AM »

You also have to ask: Throughput to where?   Networks can be optimized for client-server or peer-to-peer  -- or both -- depending on cost.  And just because you have unlimited bandwidth "to the internet" doesn't mean "to all sites".   

The ISP is going to meet their obligations if you can run a speed test and get desired results.  That doesn't mean "watch a movie from provider X".  Nor does it necessarily mean run a P2P server 24hours a day, 7 days a week.

I think that's bullshit. They haven't met their obligation if they have the capability to provide data at the speeds promised, they actually have to do it consistently for all things I use their service for or they are no longer holding up their end of the deal.

Which part?

That ISP's just need to be able to pass speed tests.

*Edit* I realize your question could be to which part of the deal as well. The part of the deal that says I'll give you X speed up to Y amount of data for Z dollars.

So generally speed tests go to servers that are off-net.  In other words: once you get there, it's out of your control.  You can only fix bottle necks inside your own network.

Okay but they definitely have been involved if as you said Comcast was providing a peering service to Netflix and then chose to stop providing that service for more money. It's decidedly not outside of their control if they've been able to address it.

So then they can manufacture slowdowns like they did for Netflix and wash their hands of it? Well it's not really us you see, we were providing something for Netflix so that our customers could get their content at an advertised speed. Now we are no longer going to do that because Netflix won't pay more. So you the customer who I've agreed to provide a specific service get's screwed because of internet big boy dick swinging.

That's why I get frustrated. Like I said before I don't give a shit who has to pay for it, if the fault is with Comcast then they should raise their price because they need more cash to provide the right infrastructure, ditto for Netflix. But with that being said I don't like seeing a rug get pulled out from under someone and the guy holding the rug saying it wasn't their fault.

thepokercab

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 484
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #71 on: April 29, 2014, 11:22:36 AM »
Interesting discussion...

Spork-  i was wondering if you wouldn't mind just sort of summarizing your argument and how it differs from what arebelspy and others are saying?  I get what they're saying, but to be honest, i'm not quite sure what it is that you're arguing..  Is it that the internet shouldn't be neutral, is already not neutral but we just don't know it, etc..  I have no doubt this is due to my own ignorance, but I guess i've read through the thread and could just use a recap.. 

I guess i'm one of those people who don't understand net neutrality, but i'm trying to learn more! 

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #72 on: April 29, 2014, 11:36:26 AM »
Interesting discussion...

Spork-  i was wondering if you wouldn't mind just sort of summarizing your argument and how it differs from what arebelspy and others are saying?  I get what they're saying, but to be honest, i'm not quite sure what it is that you're arguing..  Is it that the internet shouldn't be neutral, is already not neutral but we just don't know it, etc..  I have no doubt this is due to my own ignorance, but I guess i've read through the thread and could just use a recap.. 

I guess i'm one of those people who don't understand net neutrality, but i'm trying to learn more!

Correct me if I misstate this Spork, because I'm not intending to.

Spork is arguing a very specific viewpoint that the Comcast v. Netflix thing was Netflix fault and people misinterpret it as a net neutrality problem on Comcast's end.

I think we're talking past each other now though, because I don't care so much about that.  I'm more interested in talking about the theory behind net neutrality and if it's a good thing overall, not this one specific case that has been misrepresented in the media and just muddles issues.

But I'd like to hear Spork's thoughts on net neutrality legislation.  Are you against net neutrality in principal*?

*note: this does not preclude a network from some packet shaping for efficiency purposes
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #73 on: April 29, 2014, 12:55:10 PM »

There seem to be a whole lot of definitions as to what NN is and isn't.  Most of the recent uproar has been related to network management tactics.  (You can argue whether these are dick moves or not, but they're still network management IMO.)

There is a very wide view (and really the origin of the word) that NN is "no censorship."  I'm cool with that.  Though, I'm also a free market guy and while I have no desire for a filtered internet -- I know there are those that might want one for themselves or their children.  I'm also okay with that as long as it is a market decision and not something pushed down by force.  (I.e. Iran censors internet: bad.  Baptist ISP offers censored internet as a service: not for me, but I'm ok with it.)

My understanding of the FCC's view is "not making decisions based on source, destination or protocol."  And from a networking standpoint, some protocols require special decisions.  It gets to be a sticky area.  You make a decision to try to make things "work better" and you're suddenly in hot water for meddling based on protocol.  ISPs often have to play a bit of a game there.  "Not working at all" is certainly not a valid choice.  "One protocol broken while we re-engineer it" is a sucky choice... but... to be honest, one that might have to be made.

Malware throws something altogether entirely new into this.  Some "bad guy" might attack MMM's site.  His ISP might very well take him off the network in order to save the rest of the network.  That sucks like hell.  Nobody is happy with it.  But it is a decision that is made -- not because the ISP hates MMM -- but because they would rather piss off one customer than all of them.   And the bad news here is that the style and manner of attack varies wildly and often these guys are wicked smart.

Long term: ISPs (or those that provide TV) and Netflix are going to change the way they operate ... or they're going to go broke.  This will involve big changes in the way they price stuff and will probably bring price increases on the internet side as the tv side starts to evaporate.  But maybe that's a different topic.  (I include Netflix there because, like cable TV, they are middle men.  Content providers have figured out they can offer their own streaming services and don't need Netflix to distribute it.)

danclarkie

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 85
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Dubai & Singapore
  • Measure Twice, Cut Once.
    • Dan Clarke
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #74 on: April 29, 2014, 02:16:46 PM »
I was referring back to "a guaranteed bandwidth, commercial service in addition to the service Netflix already has with whatever their ISP is."   

That is all peering is.  It's guaranteed commercial services for $0.

When Netflix was set up, it benefited both sides equally for that connection.  Hence: $0.  (I'm pretty sure Netflix has never in it's life NOT had peering with ISPs).

At some point, the scale tips.  It is cheaper for Comcast to take that traffic from the internet (which is the definition of net neutral) than it is to take it from the free peering.  At the point the peering contract is up, it can either be re-established or not.  In this case: it was not.

That's fine.  And if Netflix needs to pay because the bottleneck is on their end, and raise their rates because of that, I'm fine with it.  I'm not some Netflix zealot that thinks they shouldn't pay their share.  But what was happening is that Comcast was purposefully slowing down Netflix traffic.  That is bullshit.  I pay for X data for $Y at Z speed.  Serve it to me.  If you can't, you've broken our contract. 


I'm trying to tell you: that's exactly opposite of what was happening.

Comcast did not purposefully slow down Netflix's traffic.
Comcast ceased purposefully speeding up Netflix's traffic.

Does that make sense?

Not really,

You still have not explained WHY would Comcast speed up netflix traffic in the first place?
If they have no legal onligation to do so, why do it?

Instead of upgrading server, MMM should just ask Comcast to speed up the site, and Comcast will oblige?

And secondly, if all data packets are equal, why does a packet from netflix move so much slower through Comcast than a data packet from Google?

A single 64Kb packet.

Why does it take much longer to deliver if it is from Netflix, as opposed to if it is from Google?
If the problem is with netflix, why are all other ISPs not experiencing the same slowdown?

Insanity

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1021
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #75 on: April 29, 2014, 02:41:44 PM »
Whatever the ISP and customer agree to contractually.  But if we've agreed to X bytes for $Y at Z speeds, deliver it.  Regardless of the content.

And if I'm paying double Y because I use double X bytes (because I stream Netflix and you don't*), but we're both going at Z speeds because that's what was promised, I expect the ISP to deliver, because they promised to do so, and if they can't, they need to upgrade their infrastructure and/or stop making promises they can't deliver on.

That fits perfectly with net neutrality, ISPs as common carriers.

*I believe that's the exact scenario you wanted: people paying for what they use, so you don't subsidize someone else's netflix viewing.

But this is where we differ.   As a customer, if Comcast increases my rate because they need to upgrade infrastructure to support only a segment of their population, then I am being charged for services that I am not going to be using.  So, throughput is different then data usage from that regard. 

Otherwise, I haven no problem with it.

Yeah, you know what pisses me off?  Airlines are required to fly to dumb places in the middle of the country -- I never fly there!  It's raising my flight costs!  Good thing there's no social benefit to a robust national air travel network.

well, considering I only fly maybe once a year it doesn't impact me much at all and that airlines aren't equivalent to a utility, so have apples meet oranges

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #76 on: April 29, 2014, 03:36:53 PM »

I'm trying to tell you: that's exactly opposite of what was happening.

Comcast did not purposefully slow down Netflix's traffic.
Comcast ceased purposefully speeding up Netflix's traffic.

Does that make sense?

Not really,

You still have not explained WHY would Comcast speed up netflix traffic in the first place?
If they have no legal onligation to do so, why do it?


1/3 of all traffic is Netflix.  That's a really huge number.  Comcast originally set up those back doors (peer agreements) to save money.   Remember: Comcast has an ISP, too. (probably several)  Those are the Level3's, XO's, CenturyLink's, etc.  So Comcast says (or maybe Netflix says to Comcast) "Hey, why don't we bypass those guys and we won't have to buy as much bandwidth upstream."

Those are large, very expensive links.  Comcast/Netflix still will have them, but they won't have to buy as much bandwidth.  They then monkey with the routing and >bing< the local connection is preferred.

Historically this was free or very cheap.  There might be some setup cost.

[ The rest is pure conjecture based on how I have seen things work. ]

Now: as Netflix grows, that pipe has to be increased.  Maybe a router blade has to be switched out to handle capacity, but it's not huge money.  BUT... (I'm about to make up numbers.  Beware.  Not the least bit accurate.)  Let's say the peering increases by 10g.  That means that Comcast probably will have to go increase bandwidth internally (from cityA to cityB, from cityB to cityC, ... cityZ).  Maybe they just have to increase all of those links by 1G.  But with a network that size, we're talking a huge dollar transaction.

At some point, for Comcast it becomes:
* increase peer traffic causes more expense internally than it does to just buy a little more bandwidth to Level3.   (These links are likely burstable in traffic... they can probably take the burst and see what it does internally).

So at some point: the "it is equally beneficial to both companies" becomes "it is more beneficial to Netflix than Comcast".  At that point, when the peering contract ends Comcast says "no thank you" on the renewal.
[/quote]

Instead of upgrading server, MMM should just ask Comcast to speed up the site, and Comcast will oblige?

That depends.  I would suspect the MMM server -- when it gets bogged -- is cpu bound.  It needs server resources.  (I could be wrong.)   Adding free bandwidth may or may not help.   Also... depending on where it is hosted... that company may very well have peering with Comcast and have the same "speed up."

And secondly, if all data packets are equal, why does a packet from netflix move so much slower through Comcast than a data packet from Google?

A single 64Kb packet.

Why does it take much longer to deliver if it is from Netflix, as opposed to if it is from Google?
If the problem is with netflix, why are all other ISPs not experiencing the same slowdown?

I have no visibility into Comcast... anything here would be beyond my conjecture.  The "netflix slowdown"  (or "end of speedup") should be over.  I am pretty sure they re-signed their peering agreement a few months ago.   

daverobev

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3961
  • Location: France
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #77 on: April 29, 2014, 05:05:20 PM »
Particularly in Canada where we have very limited choices of service providers (Bell, Rogers, or Cogeco . . . and usually only two of the three in any particular area).  These internet service providers also have a monopoly on television services.  It would suck to have all Netflix traffic slowed down to the point of unusability because Rogers decided to launch their own competing (shittier) internet TV.

There only needs to be one pair of copper wires to your house, but you don't have to use Bell as your provider (directly) - look into TekSavvy, ElectronicBox, etc.

I'm using a company called Velcom; $25+tax for 7Mb FTTN/100Gb. Plenty fast enough for me, and you can get faster speeds too.

/offtopic

daverobev

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3961
  • Location: France
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #78 on: April 29, 2014, 05:33:35 PM »
So basically...

I pay my ISP to connect me 'out'. They in turn pay to the next level up to connect onward, to each backbone and so on.

Content providers pay the same, except they do it very differently: They, in the case of massive data providers like netflix, talk to the large bandwidth/backbone providers, and put caching/replication servers all over so you can get your Downton Abbey fix.

I pay to be connected out to the whole lot. My ISP is under contract to connect me out at speed X. Content provider is paying for bandwidth and caching, indirectly (?) or directly (by providing their own datacentres) and hooking them up.

To me, NN means - if I request stuff.txt or port.mp4, it should come as quickly if hosted on cbc.ca or bbc.co.uk - excepting ping across the world (and not even that, because of ISP caching). My ISP should do profiling to hold more frequently requested items. So if I request website.com/2001/01/01/funnyPhoto.jpg it might actually have to come 'the long way' because nobody in their right mind wants to see that crap.

So.. here's the crux... once both ends have paid and got their data ONTO the network (my request, the provider's response), the data should be delivered regardless of content, format, etc. I don't give a shit *how* Netflix gets its data on to 'the internet' but, assuming *Netflix* is working and online and has the requisite number of servers, it should send a 1Gb file to me at the same speed as a Microsoft 1Gb Office installer or a 1Gb Steam game.

Once the data has got from the originating server *the rest of the process of getting it to my computer* should be the same.

Right? If Netflix can get me data at 100Mb/sec great, but I can only consume it at 7Mb/s - all good.

That's NN to me. What am I missing? Netflix SHOULD pay to own servers, buy content, and for the bandwidth they use. If Comcast wants to give it that access AT THE START for free, so be it - marketing for Comcast "Netflix Friendly!" or whatever - but it should in no way change how fast the data moves "across" the internet, just bandwidth getting "onto" it.

danclarkie

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 85
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Dubai & Singapore
  • Measure Twice, Cut Once.
    • Dan Clarke
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #79 on: April 29, 2014, 11:33:12 PM »
And secondly, if all data packets are equal, why does a packet from netflix move so much slower through Comcast than a data packet from Google?

A single 64Kb packet.

Why does it take much longer to deliver if it is from Netflix, as opposed to if it is from Google?
If the problem is with netflix, why are all other ISPs not experiencing the same slowdown?

I have no visibility into Comcast... anything here would be beyond my conjecture.  The "netflix slowdown"  (or "end of speedup") should be over.  I am pretty sure they re-signed their peering agreement a few months ago.

We are talking in circles a lot here.

The above issue remains the core principal.

Aside from VOLUME of data.

Why does a single 64kb packet of data from Netflix take much longer to travel the same distance over Comcasts network, compared to a 64kb packet of data from Google.com?

Even if we say that Netflix traffic gets no "passes" and has to join the main trunk of internet traffic with everyone else...
Google is not getting a pass with their traffic, so why are they delivering data down the main trunk of the Comcast network much faster than Netflix seems to be able to?

Completely ignoring the volume of Netflix traffic, the only way this can possibly be true is if Comcast are filtering netflix traffic and holding it back on the main trunk.

Otherwise the 2 packets of data (Netflix and Google) should travel over the same network, under the same condition, AT THE SAME SPEED.

That is essentially what net Neutrality is.
But nobody is able to answer this question of why a Netflix data packet travels much slower over the open network, forcing Netflix to pay Comcast for superior access.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #80 on: April 30, 2014, 07:11:04 AM »
One potential answer dan, and I don't know if this is the case, is that Netflix doesn't have the infrastructure they should.

Think about too many people visiting the MMM site at once - it slows down.  Even though your ISP is delivering the packets at the speed they said, the site can't handle the traffic.

Netflix may - essentially - be DDOSing themselves.  They have this agreement with Comcast to boost so that they can provide at the correct speed, agreement expires, and now they can't keep up.  Comcast is serving up the request packets from the customer as fast as they have promised, and delivering the Netflix packets as fast as promised, but Netflix can't keep up, so it is delivered slower, lags, buffers, etc.

If that's the case, and Netflix needs to pay to upgrade something (their servers, their pipe, or pay Comcast for peering), fine.

That doesn't violate net neutrality.  But the key to that is that Comcast must be delivering those packets - both ways - as fast as they've promised, and not changing it or delivering anything else faster, simply because it's Netflix packets that the customer is requesting.

I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #81 on: April 30, 2014, 07:13:43 AM »
Anyone interested in Net Neutrality should read this article on io9 (I saw it shared on Lifehacker today):
The Internet is About to Become Worse Than Television.

It's written from a pro-net neutrality viewpoint, but has some basic facts and/or arguments you'll find interesting.

I do think they understand net neutrality, and are still for it, gasp.  ;)

I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

danclarkie

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 85
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Dubai & Singapore
  • Measure Twice, Cut Once.
    • Dan Clarke
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #82 on: April 30, 2014, 07:25:04 AM »
One potential answer dan, and I don't know if this is the case, is that Netflix doesn't have the infrastructure they should.

But If that were the case, then they wouldn't be striking a deal with just Comcast?!

And they would just up their own output abilities, at their own cost and on their own terms.

Once the packet joins the ISP's network, it is out of Netflix's hands and should travel through the network at the same speed as any other type of content :S

I really can not for the life of me get my head around that part.
Really I can not.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #83 on: April 30, 2014, 07:42:18 AM »
I was referring back to "a guaranteed bandwidth, commercial service in addition to the service Netflix already has with whatever their ISP is."   

That is all peering is.  It's guaranteed commercial services for $0.

When Netflix was set up, it benefited both sides equally for that connection.  Hence: $0.  (I'm pretty sure Netflix has never in it's life NOT had peering with ISPs).

At some point, the scale tips.  It is cheaper for Comcast to take that traffic from the internet (which is the definition of net neutral) than it is to take it from the free peering.  At the point the peering contract is up, it can either be re-established or not.  In this case: it was not.

That's fine.  And if Netflix needs to pay because the bottleneck is on their end, and raise their rates because of that, I'm fine with it.  I'm not some Netflix zealot that thinks they shouldn't pay their share.  But what was happening is that Comcast was purposefully slowing down Netflix traffic.  That is bullshit.  I pay for X data for $Y at Z speed.  Serve it to me.  If you can't, you've broken our contract. 


I'm trying to tell you: that's exactly opposite of what was happening.

Comcast did not purposefully slow down Netflix's traffic.
Comcast ceased purposefully speeding up Netflix's traffic.

Does that make sense?
Evidence please?

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #84 on: April 30, 2014, 07:53:29 AM »
One potential answer dan, and I don't know if this is the case, is that Netflix doesn't have the infrastructure they should.

But If that were the case, then they wouldn't be striking a deal with just Comcast?!

And they would just up their own output abilities, at their own cost and on their own terms.

Once the packet joins the ISP's network, it is out of Netflix's hands and should travel through the network at the same speed as any other type of content :S

I really can not for the life of me get my head around that part.
Really I can not.

Yes. And that is what Spork is saying they did.   I'm having trouble wrapping my head around what you aren't understanding.  Rephrase your confusion please.  :)
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #85 on: April 30, 2014, 07:58:50 AM »
And secondly, if all data packets are equal, why does a packet from netflix move so much slower through Comcast than a data packet from Google?

A single 64Kb packet.

Why does it take much longer to deliver if it is from Netflix, as opposed to if it is from Google?
If the problem is with netflix, why are all other ISPs not experiencing the same slowdown?

I have no visibility into Comcast... anything here would be beyond my conjecture.  The "netflix slowdown"  (or "end of speedup") should be over.  I am pretty sure they re-signed their peering agreement a few months ago.

We are talking in circles a lot here.

The above issue remains the core principal.

Aside from VOLUME of data.

Why does a single 64kb packet of data from Netflix take much longer to travel the same distance over Comcasts network, compared to a 64kb packet of data from Google.com?

Even if we say that Netflix traffic gets no "passes" and has to join the main trunk of internet traffic with everyone else...
Google is not getting a pass with their traffic, so why are they delivering data down the main trunk of the Comcast network much faster than Netflix seems to be able to?

Completely ignoring the volume of Netflix traffic, the only way this can possibly be true is if Comcast are filtering netflix traffic and holding it back on the main trunk.

Otherwise the 2 packets of data (Netflix and Google) should travel over the same network, under the same condition, AT THE SAME SPEED.

That is essentially what net Neutrality is.
But nobody is able to answer this question of why a Netflix data packet travels much slower over the open network, forcing Netflix to pay Comcast for superior access.

So maybe I am not understanding your question.... so the answer is based an a guess...
If google is peered and netflix is not... the google traffic would be taking a shorter path over (potentially) less congested networks.   I.e, google isn't going over the open network and netflix is.

If I am making wild conjecture ... it could also mean google has better (more) connectivity on the open network.

Also realize things like google are probably not one single host.  I'd wildly bet www.mrmoneymustache.com is one big computer.  www.google.com is not.  It is a massively distributed system.  They work really hard to send you to the closest point of presence.   You may get a different IP resolution based on your where you come from... and when you get to google, there is likely to be a MASSIVE load balancer that sends you to MANY hosts.

I'm not intentionally talking in circles.  I promise.

danclarkie

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 85
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Dubai & Singapore
  • Measure Twice, Cut Once.
    • Dan Clarke
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #86 on: April 30, 2014, 08:06:59 AM »
And secondly, if all data packets are equal, why does a packet from netflix move so much slower through Comcast than a data packet from Google?

A single 64Kb packet.

Why does it take much longer to deliver if it is from Netflix, as opposed to if it is from Google?
If the problem is with netflix, why are all other ISPs not experiencing the same slowdown?

I have no visibility into Comcast... anything here would be beyond my conjecture.  The "netflix slowdown"  (or "end of speedup") should be over.  I am pretty sure they re-signed their peering agreement a few months ago.

We are talking in circles a lot here.

The above issue remains the core principal.

Aside from VOLUME of data.

Why does a single 64kb packet of data from Netflix take much longer to travel the same distance over Comcasts network, compared to a 64kb packet of data from Google.com?

Even if we say that Netflix traffic gets no "passes" and has to join the main trunk of internet traffic with everyone else...
Google is not getting a pass with their traffic, so why are they delivering data down the main trunk of the Comcast network much faster than Netflix seems to be able to?

Completely ignoring the volume of Netflix traffic, the only way this can possibly be true is if Comcast are filtering netflix traffic and holding it back on the main trunk.

Otherwise the 2 packets of data (Netflix and Google) should travel over the same network, under the same condition, AT THE SAME SPEED.

That is essentially what net Neutrality is.
But nobody is able to answer this question of why a Netflix data packet travels much slower over the open network, forcing Netflix to pay Comcast for superior access.

So maybe I am not understanding your question.... so the answer is based an a guess...
If google is peered and netflix is not... the google traffic would be taking a shorter path over (potentially) less congested networks.   I.e, google isn't going over the open network and netflix is.

If I am making wild conjecture ... it could also mean google has better (more) connectivity on the open network.

Also realize things like google are probably not one single host.  I'd wildly bet www.mrmoneymustache.com is one big computer.  www.google.com is not.  It is a massively distributed system.  They work really hard to send you to the closest point of presence.   You may get a different IP resolution based on your where you come from... and when you get to google, there is likely to be a MASSIVE load balancer that sends you to MANY hosts.

I'm not intentionally talking in circles.  I promise.

Got it.

But Comcast choose who is and who isn't peered.

So Comcast choose which data can travel quicker over its network and which data is forced to travel more slowly (longer route).

To be allowed peerage, you have to pay Comcast money.

So it is totally, already, a two tier system in which you can either pay the toll or have your traffic held back in comparison to other data packets?

Comcast then do not run a neutral network in which all data is given the same chance to travel over its network?

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #87 on: April 30, 2014, 08:08:22 AM »
One potential answer dan, and I don't know if this is the case, is that Netflix doesn't have the infrastructure they should.



True enough... but ... depending on how Netflix is working... it may or may not matter -- especially in the case of a ping.  They may have a cache that sits on the ISP's network that is feeding the video such that how long it takes to get to www.netflix.com doesn't matter.  The video may be coming from somewhere else entirely.  And... as far as ping/ICMP goes... it's not overly important to video.  In other words, assume you're watching a movie.  They sent the packet 10 seconds ago and the darn thing is just now getting to you.  As long as the next packet in the stream gets there immediately thereafter (and the next... and the next) ... who cares?   You're watching a 2 hour movie.  If you're 10 seconds behind real time and you have enough buffer to keep stuff from stuttering... everyone is happy.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #88 on: April 30, 2014, 08:18:15 AM »
One potential answer dan, and I don't know if this is the case, is that Netflix doesn't have the infrastructure they should.



True enough... but ... depending on how Netflix is working... it may or may not matter -- especially in the case of a ping.  They may have a cache that sits on the ISP's network that is feeding the video such that how long it takes to get to www.netflix.com doesn't matter.  The video may be coming from somewhere else entirely.  And... as far as ping/ICMP goes... it's not overly important to video.  In other words, assume you're watching a movie.  They sent the packet 10 seconds ago and the darn thing is just now getting to you.  As long as the next packet in the stream gets there immediately thereafter (and the next... and the next) ... who cares?   You're watching a 2 hour movie.  If you're 10 seconds behind real time and you have enough buffer to keep stuff from stuttering... everyone is happy.

And that's why some traffic shaping may be okay.  But different pay for faster, or slower, speeds based on packet content is crap.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #89 on: April 30, 2014, 08:31:36 AM »
I was referring back to "a guaranteed bandwidth, commercial service in addition to the service Netflix already has with whatever their ISP is."   

That is all peering is.  It's guaranteed commercial services for $0.

When Netflix was set up, it benefited both sides equally for that connection.  Hence: $0.  (I'm pretty sure Netflix has never in it's life NOT had peering with ISPs).

At some point, the scale tips.  It is cheaper for Comcast to take that traffic from the internet (which is the definition of net neutral) than it is to take it from the free peering.  At the point the peering contract is up, it can either be re-established or not.  In this case: it was not.

That's fine.  And if Netflix needs to pay because the bottleneck is on their end, and raise their rates because of that, I'm fine with it.  I'm not some Netflix zealot that thinks they shouldn't pay their share.  But what was happening is that Comcast was purposefully slowing down Netflix traffic.  That is bullshit.  I pay for X data for $Y at Z speed.  Serve it to me.  If you can't, you've broken our contract. 


I'm trying to tell you: that's exactly opposite of what was happening.

Comcast did not purposefully slow down Netflix's traffic.
Comcast ceased purposefully speeding up Netflix's traffic.

Does that make sense?
Evidence please?

So... there is so much crap written on Comcast v Netflix that my google-fu might take a while...

Here is where the new peering deal was inked on Feb 21.  It comes with traceroutes to show the peer.  I know I read articles at the time about how it was going over Level3 (or one of the upper tier providers.)

I can tell you: pretty much any large ISP has peering deals with pretty much every big data supplier. 

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #90 on: April 30, 2014, 08:43:07 AM »

Got it.

But Comcast choose who is and who isn't peered.

So Comcast choose which data can travel quicker over its network and which data is forced to travel more slowly (longer route).

To be allowed peerage, you have to pay Comcast money.

So it is totally, already, a two tier system in which you can either pay the toll or have your traffic held back in comparison to other data packets?

Comcast then do not run a neutral network in which all data is given the same chance to travel over its network?

I think that could roughly be assumed to be true.  There is a tiered system that allows for a shorter path with bigger bandwidth that costs less to implement.  (Comcast might argue "costs less"... since the big pipe on one end results in more increases in their network.)

My position here is: that's how it works everywhere and how it's always worked.  Furthermore: If you stop doing that, the internet we have today doesn't work.

 That's not to say "there is not some other way it could work."  I am sure there are other ways.  Let's say at least "this is a much less expensive way to make things work."  With an infinite amount of bandwidth and money, you could do all sorts of things.

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #91 on: April 30, 2014, 08:49:39 AM »

And that's why some traffic shaping may be okay.  But different pay for faster, or slower, speeds based on packet content is crap.

If I understand what you're saying: I am not aware of this happening.  (I may very well be wrong.)     It also depends on what you mean by "content". 

If you mean "is it offensive" - I really don't think anyone in the US does this or really intends to.
If you mean "it is protocol X" - I know it's happened.  (Comcast got in trouble a few years back on Peer2peer).  I think it was a stopgap to fix one protocol that was killing everything though.


danclarkie

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 85
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Dubai & Singapore
  • Measure Twice, Cut Once.
    • Dan Clarke
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #92 on: April 30, 2014, 09:01:56 AM »
That's not to say "there is not some other way it could work."  I am sure there are other ways.  Let's say at least "this is a much less expensive way to make things work."  With an infinite amount of bandwidth and money, you could do all sorts of things.

The thing is, the current net neutrality law doesn't say "You must treat all data equally, unless, you know, its cheaper to not do that"

To be honest, IDGAF how much cheaper it is from Comcast to deliver various packets at differing speeds based on their content.
Neither do the FCC rules (I assume, otherwise there would be no need to propose these amendments).

I come back to my previous stance on this from earlier in this thread.

If the net neutrality changes come into play, you can potentially almost certainly kiss goodbye to the MMM forum.
The big players will pay the fees to remain available to the public, whilst smaller bloggers/forums like this will, obviously, not pay $$$ a year to the ISPs to be bundled in.

Your ISP will be able to say "If you want financial advice, we offer unrestricted access to CNN and CBNBC finance, these cover all of your investment and finance needs"

Once the framework is in place to block content, bad things happen and stuff goes downhill rather quickly...

Obviously the first things to go will be the piracy, torrent, and streaming sites.
Next will be the sites that offer ways to get around the filters, such as proxy websites and VPN websites.
Websites with perceived links to terrorism will go.
Then websites sympathetic to extremist causes (Animal rights groups, anti-capitalism groups, Occupy protest websites)
Then websites that report news on any of the above groups.
Until, in the end, you get a state sanctioned internet which restricts access to any content that the government or large corporations do not agree with.

And everyone will sleepwalk into it by either not understanding it, or believing that it is in their best interest (to protect them from baddies).

Call me a "tin hat" but the countries that currently implement the DNS filtering technology for this purpose are:

  • China
  • Iran
  • United Arab Emirates
  • Armenia
  • Ethiopia
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Yemen
  • Bahrain
  • Burma (Myanmar)
  • Syria
  • Turkmenistan
  • Uzbekistan
  • Vietnam
The US want's to add itself to that list.
inb4 Reductio ad Hitlerum


With such filtering in place, a public forum like this becomes almost untenable at any scale.
It will take only a few cases of someone posting information that is "blocked" on the forum here before the ISP's kill access to the forum to prevent it being used to circumvent the restrictions in place.

Say you ISP filters news from "Example News Corp" unless you pay the extra $20 a month.
Your ISP gives access to MMM as usual, for free.
Someone who has paid the $20 extra fee goes to "Example News Corp" and reads a MMMesque article and decides to post it to MMM in full.

You can then use MMM forum to access the "Example News Corp" content that otherwise would cost you $20 a month to see.

Your ISP fixes this issue by blocking access to MMM unless you pay the $20 a month.

People that don't know MMM, and don't already pay the $20 a month, will never see MMM and never hear of it.

Hurrah! The slow death of the internet!


Source: I live in a country with strict DNS filtering in place, I have also spent time in China where such systems are substantially developed and in place.

And this is the core reason why Americans cannot allow Net Neutrality changes to be passed.
Once the mechanism is in place to filter traffic based on its content, bad things will happen.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #93 on: April 30, 2014, 09:06:19 AM »
Spork, all I see you arguing about is comcast v netflix, and how people misunderstood that.

Like this recent post:
There is a tiered system that allows for a shorter path with bigger bandwidth that costs less to implement.  (Comcast might argue "costs less"... since the big pipe on one end results in more increases in their network.)

My position here is: that's how it works everywhere and how it's always worked.

...okay?  The bigger idea of net neutrality is what's in question.  Those of us for it are of the opinion that Netflix and Comcast need to work out their issues while the ISP (Comcast in this case) needs to remain neutral about the packets they are delivering.  64kb of data from Netflix or MMM forum should be treated the same by the ISP.

And we've repeated this several times, but I don't see you addressing net neutrality, just comcast v netflix.  Can we stop talking about those two companies, and talk about the actual real issue?  :)
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #94 on: April 30, 2014, 09:07:52 AM »
And this is the core reason why Americans cannot allow Net Neutrality changes to be passed.
Once the mechanism is in place to filter traffic based on its content, bad things will happen.

Oh yes. And whenever anyone is given power that can be abused, they always promise that will never happen, and then it always does, immediately.

One will say the abuses of non-net neutrality won't happen, but they will.

Net neutrality is one of the most important things today that could advance or hold back the human race.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

sheepstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2417
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #95 on: April 30, 2014, 09:25:40 AM »
Those of us for it are of the opinion that Netflix and Comcast need to work out their issues while the ISP (Comcast in this case) needs to remain neutral about the packets they are delivering.  64kb of data from Netflix or MMM forum should be treated the same by the ISP.

But Comcast choose who is and who isn't peered.

So Comcast choose which data can travel quicker over its network and which data is forced to travel more slowly (longer route).

To be allowed peerage, you have to pay Comcast money.

So it is totally, already, a two tier system in which you can either pay the toll or have your traffic held back in comparison to other data packets?

Comcast then do not run a neutral network in which all data is given the same chance to travel over its network?

Maybe I'm confused but it seems like there's a contradiction here.  Some people feel it's okay to charge the content providers more so long as the ISP isn't charging the home consumer more (thus the cost gets passed along to that particular provider's customers, e.g., higher netflix rates, more advertisements on youtube, etc.).  But others seem to feel that charging providers more (based on anything other than packet volume) is antithetical to NN.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #96 on: April 30, 2014, 09:36:56 AM »
Maybe I'm confused but it seems like there's a contradiction here.  Some people feel it's okay to charge the content providers more so long as the ISP isn't charging the home consumer more (thus the cost gets passed along to that particular provider's customers, e.g., higher netflix rates, more advertisements on youtube, etc.).  But others seem to feel that charging providers more (based on anything other than packet volume) is antithetical to NN.

If Netflix is having to pay more because they can't support the load on their end, so have to pay Comcast for preferential speedup to match what they need, that's fine.

If comcast is purposefully slowing things down or can't keep up on their end with what they've promised to their customers, not okay.

So that's what determines who pays: where the bottleneck is.

As long as the ISP is delivering what's promised regardless of the content, net neutrality is preserved, even if some other company is paying comcast in order to be able to provide their and passing the cost on to its customers.

Did that make sense and/or clear it up?  If not, please explain more your confusion.  :)
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #97 on: May 01, 2014, 01:53:21 PM »

And we've repeated this several times, but I don't see you addressing net neutrality, just comcast v netflix.  Can we stop talking about those two companies, and talk about the actual real issue?  :)

Certainly (though that also includes Verizon...but let's forget that).  The only reason I brought it up is because that is what I see people screaming about when it comes to NN.  I saw it during the comcast/NF squabble.  I saw it in the Verizon/NF squabble.  I just have not seen any real NN issues in the US that were not attributed to managing traffic. 

How about I shut up and you give me an example of an ongoing issue in the US that is about net neutrality that isn't about network management.

clifp

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 890
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #98 on: May 02, 2014, 06:02:44 AM »
I am trying to understand why it is bad to allow different packets higher priority on the network based on the content.

I really don't care how long (within some reasonable limit) how long the packet for this message get routed and delivered to the MMM server. If some wife is using Skype to talk to her husband in Afghanistan and there is more demand for bandwidth than supply, I am perfectly happy to have my packets get delayed or routed in some slower fashion.   Conversely if I am streaming a Netfix movie, it is more important for many to get my packets as fast as possible, than say the guy down the block bit torrenting some porn.    While there is no perfect way of prioritizing the packets, I am trying to see the harm in allow Netflix, or the Amazon streaming service for paying more for prioritizing their video content, but not necessarily paying a premium for their email blasts.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Net Neutrality - I don't get it
« Reply #99 on: May 02, 2014, 06:20:47 AM »
I am trying to understand why it is bad to allow different packets higher priority on the network based on the content.

I really don't care how long (within some reasonable limit) how long the packet for this message get routed and delivered to the MMM server. If some wife is using Skype to talk to her husband in Afghanistan and there is more demand for bandwidth than supply, I am perfectly happy to have my packets get delayed or routed in some slower fashion.   Conversely if I am streaming a Netfix movie, it is more important for many to get my packets as fast as possible, than say the guy down the block bit torrenting some porn.    While there is no perfect way of prioritizing the packets, I am trying to see the harm in allow Netflix, or the Amazon streaming service for paying more for prioritizing their video content, but not necessarily paying a premium for their email blasts.

Did you see the primer links I posted earlier, or the infographic?

It segments off the Internet and becomes a "you pay me or your traffic becomes unusable."

We certainly agree that a packet may need to be routed based on priority, but one shouldn't get to pay for that priority, because then you're de facto slowing down everyone who doesn't pay.  Then the people who control the pipes (which often have no competition) can choose what you can and can't view on the Internet.

Example: Comcast has it's own offerings, and decides not to offer the option to Netflix to pay, and slows down their traffic on purpose (may not be what was happening, but very well could happen without net neutrality in the future).  Netflix constantly buffers and becomes unusual.  Great way to kill your competition.

Example: Small regional ISP owned by family with strong religious beliefs starts slowing all traffic to a crawl (think: 1 minute load times on a simple page) to any site they don't agree with (promoting gay marriage, rock and/or roll, porn, etc.).

Letting ISPs decide what content is slowed or not essentially lets them decide what content you view.

I wouldn't let a phone company insert static to someone I was calling, because they don't like who I'm calling.  They should route the phone call, regardless of the end points.  An ISP should be a "dumb pipe" or common carrier like this - go out and get the data packet I requested without deciding what it is and IF they want to serve it to me at the speed they promised.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.