"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet

[blue32]

Oh really?

View attachment 4784

Only in Sweden (of the top 10) are speed getting faster at a rate better than here. And our speeds are faster than European nations.

They don't have the issue of pulling fiber optic cable criss cross an area the size of the United States.

Did you vote for any one of the 5 people on the FCC board, or any of the FCC's employees?

SMH

Meh, that graph doesn't mean jack, way to easy to manipulate. And I agree w/DVISS1. ComCrap and the ilk would rather swindle the consumer than better the networks. Unless of course that betterment equated to more swindling.

 

[Denny Crane]

Meh, that graph doesn't mean jack, way to easy to manipulate. And I agree w/DVISS1. ComCrap and the ilk would rather swindle the consumer than better the networks. Unless of course that betterment equated to more swindling.

Take a look at your paycheck stub if you want to see swindling.

Easy to manipulate?

It's clear that people who have no clue how the internals of the internet work shouldn't be driving policy for "sound good/feel good" reasons.

Akamai delivers static content (images, movies, etc.) from servers located in all these countries. It's their business model to measure the bandwidth and actual packet round trip speeds (not the same thing). Nobody's manipulating anything. It's as scientific a measurement as you can get.

 

[dviss1]

Oh really?

View attachment 4784

Only in Sweden (of the top 10) are speed getting faster at a rate better than here. And our speeds are faster than European nations.

They don't have the issue of pulling fiber optic cable criss cross an area the size of the United States.

Did you vote for any one of the 5 people on the FCC board, or any of the FCC's employees?

SMH

Nope. However, the people who put them there were voted in. I didn't vote for Ron Wyden but I'm very glad he championed this effort to not allow corporations to screw us further.

 

[blue32]

Take a look at your paycheck stub if you want to see swindling.

Easy to manipulate?

It's clear that people who have no clue how the internals of the internet work shouldn't be driving policy for "sound good/feel good" reasons.

Akamai delivers static content (images, movies, etc.) from servers located in all these countries. It's their business model to measure the bandwidth and actual packet round trip speeds (not the same thing). Nobody's manipulating anything. It's as scientific a measurement as you can get.

I've worked for a telecom company for the greater part of 15 years. I know exactly what can be manipulated, what goes into the "internet" and what happens within CLECs , etc. I understand Akamai. But you misunderstand my point. Saturation, and QOS or lack thereof can greatly impact perceived bandwidth/latency, these charts can be manipulated. Also, to provide depth to DVISS1 example, there is no money in putting the internet in the 'forest' in USA. However in Finland, maybe it isn't about money, thus the people actually have usable service out in the sticks.

Telecoms here are about the bottom line, and this regulation hurts their bottom line; so the rhetoric spins from the corporations as a "Government take over" "your freedom is now gone". I see hyperbole from both sides. So we'll see where it pans out.

 

[dviss1]

Take a look at your paycheck stub if you want to see swindling.

Easy to manipulate?

It's clear that people who have no clue how the internals of the internet work shouldn't be driving policy for "sound good/feel good" reasons.

Akamai delivers static content (images, movies, etc.) from servers located in all these countries. It's their business model to measure the bandwidth and actual packet round trip speeds (not the same thing). Nobody's manipulating anything. It's as scientific a measurement as you can get.

The government created the internet bro... Not fucking Comcast....

 

[Denny Crane]

The government created the internet bro... Not fucking Comcast....

That's just plain silly.

When the government was all there was in the Internet, there were a handful of 45 mbit lines between govt. agencies and some of the universities with big grant money.

Comcast has built and paid for untold number of miles of cable plus fiber optic in municipalities and between municipalities. They deserve to be able to exploit their infrastructure for the most profit they can. That's what investing capital is all about. Not just Comcast, but Level 3 and lots of other companies that interconnect networks to give us the greater Internet.

What is fucked up is that municipalities only allow one ISP to build infrastructure. That's government creating a monopoly, not capitalism in action. And you want to give even more power to the government? What they should do is forbid laws against competition.

 

[Denny Crane]

I've worked for a telecom company for the greater part of 15 years. I know exactly what can be manipulated, what goes into the "internet" and what happens within CLECs , etc. I understand Akamai. But you misunderstand my point. Saturation, and QOS or lack thereof can greatly impact perceived bandwidth/latency, these charts can be manipulated. Also, to provide depth to DVISS1 example, there is no money in putting the internet in the 'forest' in USA. However in Finland, maybe it isn't about money, thus the people actually have usable service out in the sticks.

Telecoms here are about the bottom line, and this regulation hurts their bottom line; so the rhetoric spins from the corporations as a "Government take over" "your freedom is now gone". I see hyperbole from both sides. So we'll see where it pans out.

I've ordered thousands of circuits and negotiated dozens of peering agreements and about the same number of transit ones.

Apparently you don't understand Akamai. Read their patents. They're measuring QOS and latency across thousands of European locations.

If the QOS in Europe is worse than here, then the claim our unregulated Internet produces slower connections is an outright lie.

The law is akin to outlawing bars because a bartender might sell a customer a trip to the moon. It is that unrealistic a thing to try to legislate against.

 

[Denny Crane]

All this begs a bigger question. The thing is about favoring some really big companies (Google, Netflix, Amazon) over others (Comcast, et al).

Why do you choose to favor those companies over the others? I favor none, and that's my point.

Comcast and CLECs are in the business of selling circuits. They TRADE peering where the deal is fair - roughly equal amounts of traffic going in both directions. Otherwise they sell circuits to consumers and businesses. They even buy and sell circuits among one another where it makes sense. Just Youtube (Google) and Netflix alone represent 2/3 of all the data on the internet. They're not paying for 2/3 of the internet infrastructure - please tell me why they shouldn't.

Google and the rest are getting a relatively cheap ride across peering points with massive amounts of unfair (not equal in both directions) traffic. Comcast and the others are paying for it and it's costing them $$$ of capital to make their networks bigger/badder/faster to support ever better streaming quality. If they can't make the content providers pay (which is 100% the right way it should be done), they're going to make US (consumers) pay.

 

[blue32]

<snip>
Apparently you don't understand Akamai. Read their patents. They're measuring QOS and latency across thousands of European locations.

And what I am saying is that they can manipulate these graphs and measure in a vacuum so to speak. But I get the point you were trying to refute with DVISS about the speeds. However, the availability in other countries most certainly could be better in terms of coverage, vs here. Due to the simple fact that there is no money to be made in providing internet to the "sticks".

 

[blue32]

All this begs a bigger question. The thing is about favoring some really big companies (Google, Netflix, Amazon) over others (Comcast, et al).

Why do you choose to favor those companies over the others? I favor none, and that's my point.

Comcast and CLECs are in the business of selling circuits. They TRADE peering where the deal is fair - roughly equal amounts of traffic going in both directions. Otherwise they sell circuits to consumers and businesses. They even buy and sell circuits among one another where it makes sense. Just Youtube (Google) and Netflix alone represent 2/3 of all the data on the internet. They're not paying for 2/3 of the internet infrastructure - please tell me why they shouldn't.

Google and the rest are getting a relatively cheap ride across peering points with massive amounts of unfair (not equal in both directions) traffic. Comcast and the others are paying for it and it's costing them $$$ of capital to make their networks bigger/badder/faster to support ever better streaming quality. If they can't make the content providers pay (which is 100% the right way it should be done), they're going to make US (consumers) pay.

I am in favor of these rules:

No Blocking

: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services,
or non-harmful devices.

No Throttling

: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the
basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

No Paid Prioritization

: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over
other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration – in other words, no “fast lanes.” This rule also
bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.

 

[Denny Crane]

If the government wants to subsidize building internet to the sticks, let 'em. That's not the same proposition as taking over all the infrastructure through regulation.

 

[Denny Crane]

I am in favor of these rules:

No Blocking

: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services,
or non-harmful devices.

No Throttling

: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the
basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

No Paid Prioritization

: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over
other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration – in other words, no “fast lanes.” This rule also
bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.

The ISPs never have done any of these things.

Paid prioritization would be hosting Akamai servers on the ISPs WAN somewhere, no?

So they should no longer allow Akamai?

Google's home page should not be near 100% reachable anymore? They've paid big money to distribute their site across the world so it's reachable.

This should be outlawed?

http://business.comcast.com/internet/business-internet/web-hosting

It's a fast lane that you can buy if you can afford it. Why is it a fast lane? Because it doesn't go across peering points. It goes across the municipal WAN and Comcast's private nationwide backbone.

Do tell how anyone with a clue about how this stuff works can support the government takeover?

 

[Denny Crane]

If I pay $50 for 50mbit and you pay $25 for 25mbit, they are throttling us both, you more than me.

I really don't get how anyone can favor the government takeover.

 

[Denny Crane]

A good read.

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2015/02/open-internet-fcc.html

(I'm trying to find any instance of paid prioritization, where an ISP charges some site money to give specifically their packets higher priority at the router level. Can't find one, just claims the ISPs might some day).

The post says that the new rules will, “ban things like paid prioritization, a tactic some ISPs used to get additional fees from bandwidth-heavy companies like Netflix,” except that Netflix is getting NO prioritization of any kind. Netflix has a paid interconnect deal with Comcast and other ISPs but a paid interconnect deal is not the same thing as paid prioritization. All you have to do is read the joint press release by Comcast and Netflix, to know this as it clearly states that, “Netflix receives no preferential network treatment“. Engadget is not the only media site to get this wrong. These are the basics, if people can’t get those right, what chance do we have of having an educated discussion on net neutrality rules when people don’t even know what they apply to?

For all the talk of how this now help consumers with regards to blocking or throttling of content via wireline services, it has no impact. We don’t have a single example of that being done by any wireline ISP, so there isn’t a problem that needs fixing.

BINGO!

 

[blue32]

If I pay $50 for 50mbit and you pay $25 for 25mbit, they are throttling us both, you more than me.

I really don't get how anyone can favor the government takeover.

They will throttle traffic meant for you, because you are using a streaming service, like HULU for example, and they may not have an agreement with hulu.

So even though you are paying for your service, they can degrade it based on your use. Now they no longer can. I dont know how much simple I can explain that.

You also claim you can't find instances of paid prioritization; see this : http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/...peeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The internet is evil and should be banned.

 

[blue32]

Meh, both entities are evil. I just think regulating this is the lesser of each. But I guess we'll see where it shakes out, and I'll be the first one to come on hre and eat crow if I am wrong. I have no problems w/that.

 

[Denny Crane]

They will throttle traffic meant for you, because you are using a streaming service, like HULU for example, and they may not have an agreement with hulu.

So even though you are paying for your service, they can degrade it based on your use. Now they no longer can. I dont know how much simple I can explain that.

You also claim you can't find instances of paid prioritization; see this : http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/...peeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/

It doesn't say what you think. It's not paid priority. Comcast sold Netflix connections just like they sell connections to you and me. This is exactly the right solution. Netflix is paying for the bandwidth and infrastructure it's using, and WE win.

I cannot believe all the blithering idiots making bullshit claims and how laymen eat it up. I'm talking about the WaPost idiot.

 

[blue32]

At this point though isn't it bullshit hyperbole claims on both sides?

 

[Denny Crane]

At this point though isn't it bullshit hyperbole claims on both sides?

No. We have seen what happens with the government hands off. Huge corporations paying outstanding wages arose around the unfettered internet. Bandwidth got cheaper (in bits/sec and in inflation adjusted dollars). Things improved to the point we can binge watch entire TV series and the next wave, UHD/4K is a product of no government intervention.

I think things are well and orderly run, except where government IS involved. Like keeping competing ISPs to Comcast from building infrastructure and competing.

The reason your article doesn't say what you claim is that Comcast was treating Netflix' and everyone else's packets EXACTLY the same. Equally. Netflix requires better treatment or customer experience is degraded.

Also, ironic that Netflix is hosted at Amazon (like S2 is now ) and Netflix competes directly with Amazon's own Prime streaming service. The companies aren't acting like they will harm one another. They just want to do business with one another. Let 'em.

 

[blue32]

No. We have seen what happens with the government hands off. Huge corporations paying outstanding wages arose around the unfettered internet. Bandwidth got cheaper (in bits/sec and in inflation adjusted dollars). Things improved to the point we can binge watch entire TV series and the next wave, UHD/4K is a product of no government intervention.

I think things are well and orderly run, except where government IS involved. Like keeping competing ISPs to Comcast from building infrastructure and competing.

The reason your article doesn't say what you claim is that Comcast was treating Netflix' and everyone else's packets EXACTLY the same. Equally. Netflix requires better treatment or customer experience is degraded.

Also, ironic that Netflix is hosted at Amazon (like S2 is now ) and Netflix competes directly with Amazon's own Prime streaming service. The companies aren't acting like they will harm one another. They just want to do business with one another. Let 'em.

I just think that everyone on both sides is freaking out a little too much.
We'll see how it shakes out..

 

[Denny Crane]

You know Mark Cuban has a real clue. He started one of the first streaming companies that he sold to Yahoo! For $billions. He was one of the true pioneers, knows the same things I do, inside and out, and is a savvy tech investor. He's violently opposed to this govt. power grab.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...net-neutrality-i-want-there-to-be-fast-lanes/

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/welcome-to-the-obamanet-1424998484

 

[Denny Crane]

So you know I'm not just favoring the republicans' positions, they voted down this measure that I do approve of. It's no power grab, and it doesn't favor a Google over a Comcast.

This ruling is all that's needed.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/26/8114205/fcc-decision-municipal-broadband-internet

 

[WarriorFan]

Denny, as someone who can barely log on to S2, can you explain this for me? Is it basically current ISPs building lines and charging me for internet and this change would be tax dollars paying for and the govnt building the infrasturcture? Is is this just rules on competition between companies and my bill and service will stay basically the same.

Like I said, I'm a tech idiot so any response wouldn't need to be all that detailed. Thanks, I appreciate it.

 

[Denny Crane]

Basically...

The internet is a collection of public networks that are interconnected. AT&T paid LOTS of money to build a giant nationwide public network. Verizon paid lots of money to build one, too. Similarly for Comcast and other cable providers.

In order for a customer of one ISP (Comcast) to access a server that's connected to another's (AT&T), the networks have to be connected. By mutual agreement, AT&T and Comcast connect their networks in many places. It wouldn't be efficient to only connect in NYC because your communications from Oregon would have to go all the way across country and all the way back to access a server on the other network that's also in Oregon. "Peering" in NYC and Oregon (and many other places) allows the long haul connections to not be used (causing overloading and congestion).

This peering scheme has been the basis for how the Internet works since the beginning.

The requirements to get a big carrier to peer with you are considerable. They're not going to let anyone peer in one place, and the amount of traffic going in both directions needs to generally be the same - a fair trade. Peering also restricts the traffic being traded to the two companies involved. For example, on a peering connection between Comcast and AT&T, your packets won't go from Comcast across AT&T's network to Verizon's - only to AT&T customers. Comcast would peer with Verizon, too, and that's how you reach Verizon's customers.

When I say customers, I mean someone who's bought an internet connection from them. Be it a cable modem subscription or a commercial connection or hosting.

With that background, let's talk about Comcast as they (and other ISPs) are the victims of this government power grab.

Comcast spends $billions building big networks in cities. I'm talking about all the cable they pull from manhole to manhole to homes (or on phone poles). Plus all the equipment to connect it all together. Plus their own private long haul connections so they can ship on demand video (and internet traffic) from Chicago to Atlanta (and every other city they serve).

Netflix and Google (YouTube) consume 2/3 of all the traffic on the Internet. Streaming video is the most massive data intensive kind of thing you can do on the Internet. As

The thing is, Netflix and Google only build infrastructure that minimally suits their business objectives. Netflix does not have its own private network between cities, for example. Instead, they rely on peering arrangements with their hosting company to have their streaming data delivered to end users.

Comcast has been building bigger and badder metropolitan networks and long haul (between cities) networks to handle the increasing demand for Netflix and YouTube. And as the quality of the video streams increases, so does the bandwidth they require. Comcast is stuck paying the cost of building out really expensive infrastructure (pulling more wires, buying more expensive faster equipment, etc., while not charging consumers more money for it.

As I said, the peering arrangements are supposed to be fair trade - roughly equal amount of bandwidth in both directions. For argument's sake, let's say Netflix is hosted on AT&T. Whenever anyone on Comcast watches Netflix, the movie stream is going across one or more of those peering points. Netflix isn't paying for it. As the traffic from Netflix grows with consumer demand, the peering points overflow with data. They simply aren't fast enough connections to handle all the movies people want to watch. Movie streaming experience suffered.

Finally, Netflix and Comcast came to an agreement. Netflix BUYS peering in many places with Comcast. Those are dedicated connections, not unlike our cable modem ones. Comcast sells those to us, it sells commercial ones for peering purposes to Netflix. Netflix' movie streams now go over the dedicated peering connection and the old peering points aren't overflowing anymore. Everyone wins, though Netflix is actually having to pay for its bandwidth. As it should be.

There is no new 2nd internet leaving the old one behind, as pro net neutrality people claim.

Comcast didn't cherry pick which traffic at the peering points to slow down or filter or otherwise harm, as pro net neutrality people claim.

Net neutrality people want all traffic treated equally, which simply does not make sense. At the peering points, traffic was treated equally and Netflix customers suffered with poor experience. With the traffic treated unequally, peering, Netflix customers get better service and so does everyone else browsing every other internet site.

 

[Denny Crane]

The short answer to your question is:

Netflix never paid for bandwidth from Comcast. All Comcast customers do, so why shouldn't Netflix?

The net neutrality ruling goes far beyond simple rules regulating how traffic is treated. It governs how peering connections will be made, contractual arrangements between companies that want or provide Internet connections, will no doubt end up in govt. taxes on your internet bill as you see on your phone bill, and worse.

Prior to this ruling, AT&T was in the process of investing massive sums into vastly faster internet speeds for all its customers. Now that the government is going to dictate how they can exploit their own investment/infrastructure, they've put all that investment on hold. Why should they continue?

We lose.

Big government wins.

All I ever suggested was the Internet was working right. The peering was done right and everything works. The government should stay out of it as they always have. Without their intervention, the Internet has turned out to be a huge part of the economy and innovations. When government is involved, you get very large companies (Google, Netflix) bribing govt. officials to make rules that favor their bottom lines. All this is true.

 

[WarriorFan]

The short answer to your question is:

Netflix never paid for bandwidth from Comcast. All Comcast customers do, so why shouldn't Netflix?

The net neutrality ruling goes far beyond simple rules regulating how traffic is treated. It governs how peering connections will be made, contractual arrangements between companies that want or provide Internet connections, will no doubt end up in govt. taxes on your internet bill as you see on your phone bill, and worse.

Prior to this ruling, AT&T was in the process of investing massive sums into vastly faster internet speeds for all its customers. Now that the government is going to dictate how they can exploit their own investment/infrastructure, they've put all that investment on hold. Why should they continue?

We lose.

Big government wins.

All I ever suggested was the Internet was working right. The peering was done right and everything works. The government should stay out of it as they always have. Without their intervention, the Internet has turned out to be a huge part of the economy and innovations. When government is involved, you get very large companies (Google, Netflix) bribing govt. officials to make rules that favor their bottom lines. All this is true.

Thank you. And I don't mean to derail the conversation here but it seems to me like ATT benefits even by not charging NFLX because I, for example, recently upgraded my service and my payment to them simply becuase I wanted better quality streaming. If they charge NFLX, I doubt they reduce my bill and then I will pay NFLX and AMZN more, possibly causing me to rethink my subscription and no longer needing a high speed connection. I guess the charge could go the other way, too. Charge content providers to put data on the internet and make internet access free to end users (they would simply be acting as a delivery system for other companies), but it seems like T may be double dipping by charging both sides; similar to a store charging both vendors and customers. Even consignment stores only charge the seller after a sale is made.

Am I missing something?

 

[blue32]

Thank you. And I don't mean to derail the conversation here but it seems to me like ATT benefits even by not charging NFLX because I, for example, recently upgraded my service and my payment to them simply becuase I wanted better quality streaming. If they charge NFLX, I doubt they reduce my bill and then I will pay NFLX and AMZN more, possibly causing me to rethink my subscription and no longer needing a high speed connection. I guess the charge could go the other way, too. Charge content providers to put data on the internet and make internet access free to end users (they would simply be acting as a delivery system for other companies), but it seems like T may be double dipping by charging both sides; similar to a store charging both vendors and customers. Even consignment stores only charge the seller after a sale is made.

Am I missing something?

It really doesn't matter. With the ruling going either way, the customer loses. The customer ALWAYS lose because they will be charged for any bullshit scam that is being drawn up; whether it's a future "government" tax due to the NN rules, or whether it's a "fee" passed on to you when NetFlix must pay Comcast to give you a movie.

So to correct Denny when he said "Big Government wins, and we lose" it's more like , "Big Government wins, Big Corporations lose, and customers get fucked like normal".

And the B.S about the infrastructure all of the sudden now coming to a standstill because they don't want to invest is horseshit. Someone eventually will continue to propel it forward. Sure maybe not ATT, but someone will.

 

[Denny Crane]

Thank you. And I don't mean to derail the conversation here but it seems to me like ATT benefits even by not charging NFLX because I, for example, recently upgraded my service and my payment to them simply becuase I wanted better quality streaming. If they charge NFLX, I doubt they reduce my bill and then I will pay NFLX and AMZN more, possibly causing me to rethink my subscription and no longer needing a high speed connection. I guess the charge could go the other way, too. Charge content providers to put data on the internet and make internet access free to end users (they would simply be acting as a delivery system for other companies), but it seems like T may be double dipping by charging both sides; similar to a store charging both vendors and customers. Even consignment stores only charge the seller after a sale is made.

Am I missing something?

AT&T, in your example, should be charging you to use bandwidth and Netflix. Just as you add more bandwidth and pay more for your use, so should netflix. It's common sense

A good read
http://fortune.com/2014/02/24/inside-the-netflix-comcast-deal/