Search Unity

  1. Good news ✨ We have more Unite Now videos available for you to watch on-demand! Come check them out and ask our experts any questions!
    Dismiss Notice

FCC Internet Neutrality

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by carking1996, Sep 10, 2014.

  1. carking1996

    carking1996

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Posts:
    2,563
    https://www.battleforthenet.com/sept10th/

    Tidbits of info about it...

    Should Internet providers like Comcast or Verizon get to control the speed the web, making some sites load slower and others, who can pay for the speed, go faster?

    Supporters of net neutrality, the principle that all data and all websites are equal, say they shouldn't. Many websites are joining an "Internet Slowdown" protest today to make the point, and to try to prevent rules that would give Internet providers more latitude to create Internet fast lanes.

    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) set rules to preserve open access to the Internet, but has not yet made a final ruling on net neutrality. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler proposed banning Internet providers from slowing down specific websites, but his proposed rules would not ban special high speed "toll" lanes set aside for companies willing to pay for them. Hundreds of websites, including those for large broadband-dependent companies like Mozilla, Vimeo, Reddit and Upworthy, and activist groups like Fight for the Future are supporting the protest as they ask the FCC to ban paid fast lanes.
     
    Paddington_Bear likes this.
  2. tiggus

    tiggus

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Posts:
    1,238
  3. Per

    Per

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Posts:
    457
    Ah price gouging.. cough.. I mean "leveraging the market".


    Sorry ITIF want the exact opposite of their weasel words there very obviously. They have no actual argument there except "we should be allowed to" and are really are the only ones who clearly wish to "suppress the important and necessary policy debate" that the rest of the world is busy having.

    Anyhow this is pretty off topic even if it does potentially impact MP gaming.
     
    Ness, AndrewGrayGames and thxfoo like this.
  4. tiggus

    tiggus

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Posts:
    1,238
    39042_2_verizon_blames_netflix_for_intentionally_slowing_down_its_own_traffic.jpg

    ITIF and the FCC is a million times more qualified to issue a statement on this than John Oliver. That is the whole issue, people trying to turn a technical and architecture discussion into a popularity contest. Working with many of these MSO backbones and peering agreements on a daily basis the whole thing has just reached ludicrous levels.

    Verizon provided a nice diagram based on actual traffic facts when Netflix claimed they "intentionally throttled" their traffic. It's reached the level of political elections now where they just lie and ignore when people correct them later.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2014
    RockoDyne likes this.
  5. tiggus

    tiggus

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Posts:
    1,238
    Also Netflix rarely mentions that they know the real solution is to place caching content servers directly on the major broadband networks like they finally did with Comcast. They use adaptive bitrate protocols for their video so as soon as a provider along the path to customers upgrades their link speed they eat it up by serving higher-def video to the customers on that link. What they are actually lobbying for is that the internet providers provide this caching server hosting for free! Because..uh, net neutrality!

    You know a friend of mine has a service that takes a lot of bandwidth scraping the internet for naked molerats, I think he should also get a connection to all the service provider networks for free. Because, net neutrality.
     
  6. Per

    Per

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Posts:
    457
    i.e. Stiffle debate.

    Sorry, but watch the video, their qualifications are simply that they have been put in place there by the political administration in their pocket.

    If you know even a little bit about the technology behind the internet then you know that the only reason to charge more for "high speed lanes" has nothing to do with technical architecture and everything to do with as I said "leveraging the market" i.e. price gouging, it's finding new ways to charge for what was once free. Really trust me on this, I've worked with a number of telecoms at multiple levels, all the way up to directly with the CEOs, they are constantly looking for new ways to extract more money from the mark and very little of that goes into infrastructure overhead. These companies are bloated enough as is and this is nothing more than al land grab.

    The idea that no-one outside of closed doors should have a voice or could be educated about the subject matter is ridiculous, I can tell you right now that not one of the people involved actually has a ground level understanding of how the technology they sell works, in fact if they did it would be a possible detriment to their ability to do their jobs. The people involved aren't technicians, nor even accounts or lawyers, they're salesmen, that's where CEO's tend to be promoted from in large corporations, these people are figureheads, yet they will sit down and decide for you whether your company should have to pay for the privilege of accessing consumers in a competitive manner.

    The actual subject is simple, the content is simple, the reasoning is simple. It's greed. Do some research yourself. See if you can find exactly what technical limitations there are that would require segregation of low and high speed lanes for certain data sources within the existing (and potential) infrastructure, don't forget that this is just your ISP mind, so just the end point, not necesarily the source of the data which could enter the net from a completely independent location.
     
    AndrewGrayGames and CarterG81 like this.
  7. tiggus

    tiggus

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Posts:
    1,238
    I recommend this article for a good summary of all the falsehoods leading up to this. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ality-debate-has-completely-missed-the-point/

    There was absolutely 0 mentions of creating fast lanes, yet there are entire movements based on this assumption that someone said it. It's not written anywhere, no one is recorded as having said it, but by golly it sure did terrify the masses...

    Sorry this is false, there are experts in the FCC who are quite knowledgeable and they speak quite often to technical audiences. They also bring in outside experts quite often to advise.

    I've done a lot of research on this, including participating on whitepaper proposals for advisory groups addressing this issue. There are definitely issues to be discussed about how to grow the internet going forward, and right now Netflix's false claims are getting a bunch of people riled up over nothing because they think they can turn a buck off it.
     
  8. Per

    Per

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Posts:
    457
    That's actually meaningless, all servers are caching, that and node and load balancing are a part of the protocol. Comcast and others should pay for their own network equipment, their infrastructure, that's what we as consumers pay them for after all. If they're so keen to wash their hands of it all then they should hand it all over to the government, somehow I don't see that happening.

    What exactly should Comcast (or others) overhead be then in all this? Nothing at all? They are the ones who are being paid for a service already, they should just be paid more because they think it's unfair that people use the service? Or that technology isn't static? I believe theyr'e the ones who keep offering greater and greater bandwidths to their customers for more and more money.
     
  9. tiggus

    tiggus

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Posts:
    1,238
    The problem Netflix had with Comcast is the exact same as the diagram I posted for Verizon. I work with Comcast backbone engineers all the time and I can tell you their network runs well under maximum capacity(exactly like the Verizon diagram). The links of the transit providers Netflix pays on the other hand his 100% during primetime because those transit providers are not paying to transmit that much data to Comcast so it gets bottlenecked along with any other data that transit provider is trying to send there, Netflix or not.

    The answer to this problem since the Internet was invented is you peer directly with the destination network provider. I'm not saying it shouldn't be formalized in some way but THIS IS NOTHING NEW and working as designed. You exchange equal amounts of bits OR you pay to send more traffic than you receive to another network.

    Lets say for a moment that Comcast or Verizon increases the size of those links to el crappo Netflix transit provider(cogent, sigh). I've seen what happens, you get a tiny blip where the traffic goes down, netflix protocol says "hey look at this, we got more bandwidth!", and boom the link is back at 100% again but streaming higher def video. It's an unsound architecture, the right way to do it is to put caching content servers directly on Comcast's network(like they did), and now their customers get higher def video with faster speeds because it is not constrained by the crappy internet providers Netflix picked who overpromised what they could deliver.
     
  10. thxfoo

    thxfoo

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2014
    Posts:
    515
    @tiggus: fast lanes were an idea initially, but the internet outcry made them weaken it. Let's face it, all that have a say at FCC are coming directly from the monopolists.

    For any informed people it is very easy to see who is good and who is bad in this fight. I'm sorry for you that you are a blind one.

    Why are all the people who stand for an open internet and have the needed knowhow against it? And only the people backed by the monopolists for it? Wake up.

    Edit:
    for me John Oliver is more qualified than 95% of people at FCC or government. The people that have a say in such things have zero internet knowledge. I remember the US negotiator for the international telco summit which had to be briefed what ISPs are.
     
  11. tiggus

    tiggus

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Posts:
    1,238
    Sure I have a completely open mind. If someone can tell me what their argument is and what exactly they'd like to see happen I'd like to hear it. So far it usually comes down to "well I think Netflix is cool and I hate my cable company".

    As one of those dudes who has worked at early internet service providers back in the 80's/90's I can say the idea of turning the internet over for federal regulation as a utility is the complete opposite of what I'd ever have expected people to lobby for.
     
  12. thxfoo

    thxfoo

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2014
    Posts:
    515
    If you are not from the USA it is just funny your internet. Your ISPs give you very slow speed and very bad service. That's what you get by allowing them to become monopolists and have them regulate themselves.
     
    landon912 likes this.
  13. tiggus

    tiggus

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Posts:
    1,238
    You can't have it both ways. You can't say the FCC is incompetent then say they should run everything.
     
  14. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    13,131
    Like I often point out to people, tech specs aren't all that matters. Is this really a question about capacity, or is it a question of business people looking for opportunities to make more money? (That's their job, by the way, so I'm not bashing them for it. It's the nature of the world that there'll be contention around such things.)

    If it's the latter, then the tech specs don't matter. Just like Apple can charge more for a phone with lower specs than the competition, or that a Fararri can cost way more than a Ford despite fundamentally performing the same function.
     
  15. Starsman Games

    Starsman Games

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Posts:
    2,152
    I dont care about Netflix particular situation. I read enough to know there is a bit of truth on both sides there, but the ISPs are a bit more stubborn than Netflix (obvious due to how they ended up paying for something Level 3 offered to fix and even pay for, but Verizon refused the offer)

    What I care is about the principle of Net Neutrality to be law. ISPs should not be allowed, by law, to charge any service for bandwidth or "fast lanes" unless there is a real congestion issue. Without such legal protection, an ISP could easily prioritize who gets faster connections to the end users. ISPs are dying to be able to do this, and it would be bad for everyone (but ISPs.)
     
  16. tiggus

    tiggus

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Posts:
    1,238
    See that's an argument I can get behind. I also agree there should not be preferential treatment on the last mile or at the inter exchange points. To date this has not been a problem but there is no harm formalizing it and that is what the discussion should be about as well as nailing down some of the guidelines around settlement free peering. The confusion is when companies like Netflix claim they are being discriminated against and try to get freebies. No one intentionally throttled Netflix traffic as much as they would like to, that would be an excellent way to end up in court with a very large bill on their hands, which is why you see claims and no actual legal action.
     
  17. tiggus

    tiggus

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Posts:
    1,238
    There are technical limitations present in the internet peering architecture, it simply was not designed to carry massive loads of video to and from every nook and cranny of the internet. The misconception here was that the bottleneck was in the last mile to the customers, which it wasn't(ie fast lanes had 0 bearing on the netflix discussion). When you account for 33-40% of all internet traffic(netflix) you have to be willing to work on helping build the next generation architecture and not just throw out the victim card and try to get a free ride, that is what really peeves me.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2014
  18. CarterG81

    CarterG81

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    Posts:
    1,773
    Sometimes I wonder...

    If people like Tiggus are not paid off to say things like this...why the F*** do they say stuff like this?

    Who in their right mind gets their giggles defending massive almost parasitic companies who are composed up of pure concentrated greed?

    I see these types all the time in political discussions, when republitards defend incredibly evil corporations who could care less if the people who defend them die off in pain & agony.

    My conclusion is that people like this don't actually exist, and they are pawns in some kind of incredibly strange PR campaign. Tiggus is just one of hundreds of fake accounts who pretend to be real people, but in actuality are one chinese company who get paid 5 yuan per post supporting their evil sponsors.

    I'd prefer to believe tiggus, just like most republitards, is just part of the Internet Water Army, rather than being a real person blind to the greedy-level-evil people around him.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Water_Army
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2014
    Zeblote likes this.
  19. AndyLL

    AndyLL

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Posts:
    75
    Correct. In the past the bottleneck was the middle tier providers like Congent. That bottleneck allowed Comcast to sell me, and all my neighbors, 50 Mbps service... knowing that their network could not handle all the bandwidth if all of us tried to use that 50 Mbps at once.

    What freebie is Netflix looking for? The ability to provide me their content that I already pay Comcast to deliver to me?
     
  20. tiggus

    tiggus

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Posts:
    1,238
    If you go to Comcast and say I want to purchase a 500g link they would sell it to you. But I do think it is unreasonable to go to them and order say a 100g link and then complain when you try to push 500g through it. This is essentially what happened, the issue is still on the cogents of the world side by overselling promises to Netflix and underbuying connectivity the the service provider networks.

    They're hoping to influence the debate and get concessions like free peering direct with the service providers so they can connect their servers. They realize using guys like cogent as a middleman was never the right solution but it's useful as a bargaining chip and to rile people up. Unfortunately it has totally derailed the original discussion the FCC was trying to have about net neutrality, this isn't a net neutrality argument.

    CarterG: grow up
     
  21. tiggus

    tiggus

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Posts:
    1,238
    Anyways to summarize my gripe before I head off for the day:

    1) Netflix's argument is with settlement free peering which is the way the internet has handled interexchange traffic since day 1. There should be a discussion on who pays what for carrying traffic but it should be separate from anything labeled "net neutrality". Some carriers like Level 3 have proposed "bit miles" and other logistics to try to create fair formulas but they all have their challenges.

    2) Net Neutrality relates more to "fairness" and anti-monopolistic practices. This was the discussion the FCC was already trying to have before Netflix riled everyone up. It has nothing to do with #1 and should be it's own discussion.
     
  22. thxfoo

    thxfoo

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2014
    Posts:
    515
    @tiggus: you show that nice graph about how the link netflix to verizon is saturated. But which end of the connection is the bottleneck? If it is the verizon end (what can be assumed from what I read), then this is verizons problem. It gets money from the end-users to access the internet.
    If its customers want to use netflix that much, it is on verizon the provide the hardware (on its side of the network) that enough of netflix traffic can enter the network.

    That it is just extortion is shown by the fact that it got much better (65% faster) on Comcast after netflix started to pay them.

    That is what this is about: the ISPs want to sell their service twice, to the end-users and to the content providers. If they were not monopolists this would not work, because end-users would just switch the service if netflix or other content is much slower than at the competition.

    That is also the reason the big ISPs don't want to be utilities: such stuff could be forbidden then, revenues could come under scrutiny and the FCC could maybe define that broadband means xyMB/s or more. S#cks if you want to just f#ck your customers and the content providers at the same time but also not invest any of your own money into the infrastructure.

    (Here I get GB fiber for the same price you guys pay, and my netflix works without my ISP wanting money from netflix, because I would just switch the provider if netflix would not run like a charm. Ah freedom and competition, such a nice thing.)
     
  23. Hikiko66

    Hikiko66

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Posts:
    1,022
    The EU is set to adopt net neutrality. They seem to have recently added a clause to override the ability of nations to block illegal websites without getting their consent first, the UK doesn't like that. They should just remove that clause, because that has nothing to do with ensuring standard connection speeds, which is the real issue. Then it can be passed into law.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2014
  24. RockoDyne

    RockoDyne

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Posts:
    2,234
    The problem I have with the current net neutrality argument is that none of it seems to understand what a peering agreement is. None of it is actually based on real technical issues. It's all pie in the sky fear mongering about buffering HD netflix video, yet no one gives two S***s about packet shaping on bittorrent traffic.

    The biggest problem I see though is that the net neutrality people are probably being conned into supporting the censoring of the internet. Every time the FCC puts out a statement a clause about "lawful content" will always be appended to it. Which means unlawful content can go F*** itself. Remember, this is the FCC, the organization that polices TV to stop bewbies and four letter words from being heard by two year-olds and eighty year-olds alike.
     
  25. AndyLL

    AndyLL

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Posts:
    75
    Again... Netflix does not push that 500mbps... Comcast's customers pull that data from Netflix. If Comcast sells 10 households in my neighborhood 50mbps connections ( 500mbps total ) but Comcast is only able to handle 100mbps then that is Comcasts issue... not Netflixs.

    Peering is when 2 networks agree to handle each others customers. Paid peering or paid transit agreements are when 1 of those networks is sending more data over the 2nd network then vice versa. Yes... peering/transit agreements is how much of the internet backbone is paid for.

    I am a Netflix customer. I am not a Cogent customer.

    If I stream 50mbps from Netflix and it goes over the Cogent fiber then Netflix has to pay Cogent because Cogent gets no money from me.

    However... I am a Comcast customer. I already pay Comcast for that 50mbps I want to stream from Netflix.

    I want the 50mbps bandwidth I pay Comcast for. Netflix wants to provide content that uses that bandwidth I already pay for.

    Comcast does not want me (and all my neighbors) to use that bandwidth I paid for. Their network can't handle it.

    So they want to charge for that bandwidth twice.
     
  26. Gigiwoo

    Gigiwoo

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Posts:
    2,981
    Netflix accounts for 34% of ALL internet traffic. Don't get me wrong - my family loves netflix! And yet, if I strip away the philosophical and technical arguments, at the end of the day, ONE company is hogging 1/3 of the ENTIRE INTERNET. That feels somehow... wrong.

    Gigi
     
  27. tiggus

    tiggus

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Posts:
    1,238
    It's not that simple, what you are proposing is doing away with agreed upon(by BOTH networks) peering agreements and giving a free ride to some providers and penalizing others. Good discussion to have as peering agreements are complicated.

    My main point here was this has zip to do with net neutrality and the original post which suggests they are controlling the speed of specific services, which is 100% false. Some might remember years ago when Comcast used sandvine to limit torrent speed of their high bandwidth users and the media storm and fallout from that. No major carrier has attempted it since to my knowledge for something even as basic as limiting top talkers.
     
  28. CarterG81

    CarterG81

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    Posts:
    1,773
    You say grow up.

    Yet that is exactly what the Internet Water Army would say: grow up.

    You don't address the accusation. You ignore it. Water under the boat. If you address it, then people may realize it's true.

    Now I'm even MORE convinced you're part of the Internet Water Army.

    So who pays you, Xiang? If that is your real name.
     
  29. AndyLL

    AndyLL

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Posts:
    75
    This argument doesn't make sense. Netflix doesn't randomly push data out across the networks.

    Netflix users... who pay their ISPs for the privilege... choose to devote 34% of the bandwidth that they pay to their ISP for to Netflix content. It's not Netflix's problem that ISPs like Comcast oversell high speed/high bandwidth packages that they can't support if people actually use them.

    If 34% of the cars driving on public road were Honda's should we start charging Honda and their drivers more because they are using more of the roads?

    I have said no such thing. Paid peering agreements traditionally have been between tier 1 backbone networks when network 1 sends significant data through network 2. Network 2 doesn't get paid without a peering agreement. Large content providers also enter into paid peer agreements with tier 1 networks to provide bandwidth for their data. Again... this is the only way those tier 1 networks get paid for their bandwidth.

    Comcast is something completely different. They are not a tier 1 network but a 'last mile' network. They are ALREADY getting paid by their customers for their network bandwidth. Because of Netflix Comcast users tend to upgrade their service and pay Comcast higher rates to get better streaming. Comcast should be paying Netflix to provide more efficient ways to deliver content that Comcast's customers and demanding and paying Comcast for.

    It's completely apples and oranges to try to compare a tier 1 network provider who relies on peer agreements to pay for their networks to a last mile ISP that is already being paid by the consumer to provide data over their network.

    I'm begining to see that you can't understand the difference and more round and round argument is pointless.
     
    Dustin-Horne likes this.
  30. tiggus

    tiggus

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Posts:
    1,238
    I agree.
     
  31. Dabeh

    Dabeh

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Posts:
    1,611
    He didn't address it address it because it's ridiculously silly.
     
    MurDocINC likes this.
  32. Per

    Per

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Posts:
    457
    Not that silly, he is simply calling him out as a shill. However it's somewhat redundant as he's already admitted his bias and whom he works with (Comcast).

    He's also failed to respond to a number of my points and questions.

    His main counterarguments against net neutrality apparently are "Netflix doesn't want to pay for distributed servers" and it's somehow unfair for Netflix to make full use of the bandwidth that they have paid for. Meanwhile he is arguing that those who are pro net neutrality are actually trying to strike something down from the law.

    Lets look at those points.

    The muddying terminology of "server" in this instance doesn't help. It would appear on the surface to be completely reasonable for Netflix to buy more servers to serve their content right? The problem is that they do, they have no problem with doing so either. You want more space and more bandwidth on the cloud you pay for it. Everyone is fine with this model. Yet that's the crude way the argument is being presented.

    What Netflix doesn't feel they should be doing is paying for the infrastructure of the ISP's to distribute and serve this data. And they're right. It's the ISP's business to give users access to information on the web, keep this in mind at all times : the ISP's make money off of the content, what they can deliver to you. How they do this is up to them, what they promise users is up to them, their infrastructure is their own responsibility. If their servers, caching and node balancing systems are out of date then that's not the customers fault. But in this case they are claiming that it is the customers fault. This is akin to having a solar array on your roof and the electricity company asking you to pay for the local substation to help handle the additional load on the network.

    The point about it being unfair for anyone to make full use of the bandwidth they've already paid for is just too ridiculous to even qualify with a response.

    As for the last point, this is really a case of weasel words, an attempt at a smear if you prefer. In fact those who are for net neutrality are against a change in the pre-existing law that is seen as being perfectly adequate and damaged by a short sighted court of law. The thing they want to strike is the proposed change which substantially weakens the law in all practical senses, and instead have a reinforcement of the preexisting federal law to replace the case law example and close any loopholes in said law. They do not want the FCC to take over the internet, that is truly ridiculous hyperbole. They simply want the law to be how it was and to be enforceable. They do not want the system to be strong armed by corporations be that Comcast, Verizon or Netflix.
     
  33. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    13,131
    Yes, Netflix users pay their ISP for bandwidth, but that's only one link in the chain. I still have to pay for upstream bandwidth to host my website despite the fact that people looking at it are also paying for downstream bandwidth. Between my "up" link and their "down" link there's a whole bunch of other stuff that has to pass my data around.

    Users are only paying for the link between themselves and their ISP. Similarly, Netflix will only be paying for one or two links. It's what's happening with the data between the Netflix network and the users' ISPs that's in contention.

    I'm no expert here, but I doubt that the issue is on the user-link side. The average user is at most streaming a movie or two at once over a single link. No biggie. Netflix on the other hand are broadcasting a bucketload of movies to many millions of customers originating from a relatively small number of links. That is where the bottlenecks are - the small number of links near each origin that have to deal with the vast majority of the data, not the ones at the end that only have to handle one or two persons' worth at a time.
     
  34. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    26,726
    If we're going into what feels right and wrong, surely it's worrying that steam owns practically the entire digital desktop sales market, and google holds the key to practically everything you search for :)
     
    CarterG81, Ryiah and Gigiwoo like this.
  35. tiggus

    tiggus

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Posts:
    1,238
  36. AndyLL

    AndyLL

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Posts:
    75
    Netflix does already pay the upstream providers. Those are the normal peer agreements tiggus keeps talking about.

    The problem is that some of them can't handle Netflixs traffic (congent) to ISPs (comcast) so Netflix commonly puts CDNs with all their content in ISPs datacenters connected directly to the ISP which bypasses the middle tier completely.

    Netflix pays for the CDN. But Comcast wants Netflix to pay for the actual transfer of the data from the CDN directly onto Comcasts network.

    It doesn't make sense... If I stream a 5 Gig movie that 5 Gig of data goes across Comcasts network whether it comes from Congent or direct from a Netflix CDN. It's in everyone's interest to do it as cheaply and efficiently as possible.

    However Comcast has seen issues like this as a way to increase revenue.

    And...

    tiggus blames Congent for being the bottleneck in Netflix streaming. However... some of the Tier 1 providers, specifically Level 3, have started complaining publicly that the bottlenecks are the connections between the Tier 1 networks and the large ISPs and the ISPs refuse to upgrade those connections even though Level 3 offered to share the costs.
     
  37. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    26,726
    It's blatant money grabbing. Congestion isn't anything more money can't solve at this rate. You can potentially increase congestion by slowing down transfer rates, so that's really not a solution overall since the manner in which people access content (streaming vs download vs file size) has a lot to do with it.

    Congestion exists if the isp wants to pay less.
     
  38. Gigiwoo

    Gigiwoo

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Posts:
    2,981
    Completely agree. When I bought a new computer and installed Chrome, I was surprised to learn that it already knew ALL my passwords. It's a dangerous world ...

    Gigi
     
  39. Paddington_Bear

    Paddington_Bear

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Posts:
    274
    Can NOT stress the importance of this issue. Free bump.
    I also sent an email to the FCC which is something you can do if you don't live in the states.
     
  40. goat

    goat

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Posts:
    5,180
    My supposed 1.5 MBS cable internet connection does Dual ISDN speeds when it's going good so it's a crock.

    They want to throttle YouTube, a huge trove of public domain movies, music, and books, and as another examples downloads of Unity and other non-owners of the pipelines and such in favor of their 'Internet Movie/TV/News' products.

    They don't realize people aren't buying their products as much as they'd like not because the streaming is bad but the product is bad and overpriced.

    What they really, really want is that we pay text messaging rates for our data streams.
     
  41. RockoDyne

    RockoDyne

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Posts:
    2,234
    Who is this "they" and can you actually find first degree information supporting that? I'm serious. If there is one thing missing in the net neutrality debate, it's [citation needed].
     
  42. Paddington_Bear

    Paddington_Bear

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Posts:
    274
    The telecom companies refuse to admit that they will slow down websites, they insist that its a fast lane only but I sincerely hope no one is stupid enough to believe that's how it works. If your connection is faster because you pay extra then by implication someone is getting a bum end of that deal. Up until now its been a race to provide the fastest internet through R&D. If the law removal goes through you better not believe they can pull a wacky new piece of tech out their asses that lets people browse faster than is technically possible.

    My other issue is this ISN'T a debate. There IS NO debate whatsoever. No one except the telecom companies are lobbying for the removal of this law. A debate implies there's a conflict of public interest.
     
  43. RockoDyne

    RockoDyne

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Posts:
    2,234
    [citation needed] What is the law they want to strike out? Better yet, can you find the bill that's intended to remove this law?
    I'm pretty sure what people are having beef with are CABLE companies, not telco's.
    "I'm paying for the lowest tier internet service, but I expect the highest quality streaming porn to be perfect." If you stop to actually think for a moment, you might just realize that was some self-entitled bullshit there. I'm sure you think it's some robbing Peter to pay Paul scenario, but there might just be more to ISP level networking than you think.
    Any time I ever hear that a topic isn't a debate, my soul throws up a little inside. That basically means you have been so heavily spoon fed one side's interpretation of a story that you have no idea (and no way of telling) what it fact and what is bullshit. It doesn't matter where you get your news from, 90% of it is complete and absolute bullshit.
     
    HemiMG likes this.
  44. goldbug

    goldbug

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Posts:
    708
    This will not be a popular post, I will post it anyway:

    Net neutrality regulation is WRONG. Why?
    1. First, over the years internet access is becoming more and more open. I remember when my phone only connected to my phone company's portal. Now I get the full web in my cell phone. Why telcos do this? because it is a competitive advantage to tell customers that they provide more access. There is no net neutrality boogie man, net neutrality regulation is a solution looking for a problem.
    2. It assumes there are no legitimate reasons to treat traffic differently. Suppose I own a store, and I offer free internet access to my customers. I would want to make sure my store website is available, even if that means throttling traffic to other sites. Since I am paying for the access, and it is a courtesy I am giving my customers, it should be within my rights to do so.
    3. It assumes that for some reasons ISP and content providers can't work it out. If streaming netflix means more infrastructure, let the ISP and netflix work out a deal to provide it. This additional infrastructure would not be neutral, so why should netflix pay for infrastructure for competitors?
    4. You say that you don't have a choice because there is only one ISP in your town? Well, most of this happens because the city sells exclusive contracts to telcos in your area. So the solution is to strike down the monopolies imposed by the city, not to give the government more power.
    5. It will make your internet access more expensive. ISP will require additional infrastructure and staff to produce reports to proof they are compliant with this regulation. This costs will make the service more expensive by necessity. The extra regulation also make it harder for new ISP to emerge, reducing competition.
    6. Giving power to the government over bandwidth is a very dangerous precedent. It will mean the government can shut down ISP's in the future, and quite often laws like these are used for political agendas.
    I could go on and on why this is bad, but seems the entire Internet is hell bent on this.
     
    Dustin-Horne likes this.
  45. Per

    Per

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Posts:
    457
    @goldbug :

    1 - Idealistic, and wrong. Telco's like to nickle and dime you for every feature you have, want tethering? You have to pay more, even though it's just enabling bluetooth at your end! Apple wouldn't even allow Skype on their iPhone for the longest time. net neutrality ensures that this sort of crap doesn't happen.

    2 - You've just underlined why net neutrality needs to exist, to stop exactly that situation.

    3 - By working it out, you mean strong-arming. They can't. I'm as much against over-regulation as the next economic conservative out there, but there are situations where it's valuable to do so. I draw the line at anarchy. Someone has to stick up for the little guy for society to work (and society needs to recognize who the little guy is, sometimes in mob rule situations they don't realize that the mob is the big guy and even a large corporation can become the little guy).

    4 - The monopolies are created by the corporations, not the cities. If a city does restrict who can operate then the cities are just greedy and accepting exclusivity contracts offered by said corporations. So it comes back to the corporations in this case. I don't think corporations are inherently bad things, but I do think that like any large organization they need to be kept on their toes and not given carte blanche.

    5 - They've been compliant up until now, net neutrality isn't adding anything to the law, it's about retaining what's already there. If you believe in the free market and competition then you believe that this will keep prices down anyway. Even if the law wasn't there, you dont' think they would continue to raise prices anyway?

    6 - Agreed, but the point of the law is that it exists outside of the government. The law and the government are two separate things in the USA. Having a law just means that it can be enforced. In this case as technology allows anyone at all to directly evaluate and see how fast data travels between any two points on the internet it's easy to determine whether the law is being upheld by the ISP's without requiring additional outlay from the government int he form of oversight. This is one situation where technology really is the solution and keeps the law in the hands of the society as a whole and it's citizens rather than it's government, which is the core point of some recently much contested parts of the constitution.

    I understand where you're coming from, I agree in principle on some points, but I also believe in pragmatism. This situation shows that ISP's cannot be trusted to work independently in competition with each other and for the good of the common market, they are attempting to bend the law so that they can use it as a tool to gain an unfair advantage within the market, they want oversight, but to be there to cut down competition and legally enforce a strong arm policy which washes their hands of responsibility to pay for their own equipment, turning them into just a sticker on the front of the business taking all the profits and paying for none of the overheads. It's way too Chicago politics for my liking.
     
  46. RockoDyne

    RockoDyne

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Posts:
    2,234
    The irony is that wireless telco's are completely exempt from net neutrality. Just about every mention of wireless providers by the FCC in net neutrality debates is almost met with a laugh and a 'nope'. Bare in mind that this is also a sector that the FCC is already in control of.
    Skype and the iphone is a completely different argument from net neutrality.
    Takes two to tango in most of these cases though.
    Yeah, you might want to pay closer attention to what the FCC is talking about, because they would love to be in charge of regulating the internet.

    At this point, I just don't see that there can be any legislation that isn't two thousand pages. The likelihood that anyone will actually read it before it's passed is probably non-existent, too.
     
    Dustin-Horne likes this.
  47. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    26,726
    If it aint broken, don't fix it. Currently, things are ok, so lets not 'fix' it by giving isps freedom to milk us for everything we have, eh?
     
    Per likes this.
  48. tiggus

    tiggus

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Posts:
    1,238
    The FCC is in favor of maintaining and strengthening the regulations that keep the "cable monopolies" where only one provider is allowed per region due to overlap of critical infrastructure. All these folks who want more regulation are digging their own graves and making it easier for the sort of behavior they say they don't want(monopolies, fast-lanes, etc.)
     
  49. Per

    Per

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Posts:
    457
    The FCC proposal weakens the regulation while increasing oversight by the FCC. It's a parlay with the ISP's which is a win/win for both.

    What the users want is to simply keep things as they are and enforce the existing law. Neither expand the role of the FCC or government, nor allow the ISP's to dictate and filter what they deem to be important information and run monopolies (which is a separate issue, no need for pork here). This is what net neutrality is all about. It's as simple as that. Both the FCC and the ISP's need their wrists slapped.
     
  50. goldbug

    goldbug

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Posts:
    708
    That is exactly what Net Neutrality regulation is. It is a new law that tries to fix what was not broken.

    Also, a massive and unconstitutional powergrab by the FCC while doing this.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2014
unityunity