Don't understand Net Neutrality? Details too boring for you? Watch this

[slakjaw]

Originally Posted by gacook

Interesting how I've supplied multiple sources supporting what EVERYONE else here is stating, and you've supplied..."I'm right; you're wrong" as your evidence.

Tell me why those that own infrastructure should be forced to support those without infrastructure under all circumstances no matter what even if it means they go bankrupt. Go ahead and explain that to everyone here on this site. Please just answer the question.

[gacook]

Slak, you are a lost cause. Proven time and time again that you are completely incapable of coherent thought, and never have once backed up your opinion with anything resembling fact or evidence.

If you have a single shred of evidence supporting your position here, post it. It's always good to hear from both sides (which, I already have). Yes, you're an outside plant guy; congratulations. But that's about the extent of your "knowledge."

[slakjaw]

I'm not an outside plant guy. Please answer my question.

[gacook]

I did, 2 pages ago. And I won't bother wasting any more of my time trying to explain concepts to you that you simply are incapable of grasping.

[slakjaw]

You did not answer. You deflected. There are a lot of people laughing at u right now man.

[gacook]

Yes, and they're all in your head. Nice PM, by the way

[slakjaw]

You are the one unable to have a discussion. Go have a look in the mirror wise ass.

[john70t]

Cable companies are reportedly funding fake consumer groups to attack net neutrality
..Broadband for America, which describes itself as a coalition involving "independent consumer advocacy groups," and which counts senator John Sununu amongst its members, is actually funded by the NCTA -- big cable's lobbyists.

How Cable Companies Are Stopping You From Enjoying Fiber - Business Insider
..the cable companies have been offering incentives to local governments (mainly just better service) in exchange for noncompete clauses..
(Kids, can we say racketeering, price-fixing, and anti-trust?)

[slakjaw]

MODs - Please move this thread to PARF.

I do not want to hear the nut libs talking about how the world owes them a living on our regular OT section.

Thanks.

[gordner]

I am not an expert on any of this subject matter of course, but to those who have posted that slow downs would never occur, where is the extra speed for those willing to pay for it supposed to come from? Are we supposed to believe that there is higher speed capability that they are just holding back until they can charge for it?
So to give two levels of service, without raising speeds on the infrastructure, you can only slow down the fellow not paying the premium to accomplish this, or am I missing something?

[Gogar]

Originally Posted by slakjaw

MODs - Please move this thread to PARF.

I do not want to hear the nut libs talking about how the world owes them a living on our regular OT section.

Thanks.

I think you mean "net neutrality morons", don't you?

[slakjaw]

You can already pay for higher speed. And if net neutrality were to pass they would still sell tiers. I am not sure I understand your point here.

I am not an expert on any of this subject matter of course, but to those who have posted that slow downs would never occur, where is the extra speed for those willing to pay for it supposed to come from? Are we supposed to believe that there is higher speed capability that they are just holding back until they can charge for it?

So to give two levels of service, without raising speeds on the infrastructure, you can only slow down the fellow not paying the premium to accomplish this, or am I missing something?

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by gordner

I am not an expert on any of this subject matter of course, but to those who have posted that slow downs would never occur, where is the extra speed for those willing to pay for it supposed to come from? Are we supposed to believe that there is higher speed capability that they are just holding back until they can charge for it?
So to give two levels of service, without raising speeds on the infrastructure, you can only slow down the fellow not paying the premium to accomplish this, or am I missing something?

Hmmm....how to address this without making eyes glaze over . Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I was in R&D for IBM's Communications Products Division, we actually did have a "clocking device" (a sine wave generator) that I could turn the knob and ACTUALLY control the speed (over copper) from 0 to around 75K per second (56K was FAST and the de facto upper limit on line speeds in typical networks those days). Those daze are long gone . When we're talking about Fiber networks, obviously EVERYTHING is traversing the "pipe" at the speed of light, and I don't think even ol' Albert himself could speed up (or slow down) that. What you're getting is like a "time slice" of the "speed of light down the fiber pipe" if that makes sense. Still there are LOTS of ways to improve/degrade the apparent "speed" that will be experienced by both sides of the connections, but the actual speed of the packets traversing the Fiber "pipe" are always gonna be at "light speed"....it's what happens on the endpoints that control the throughput. Hope that helps...just a bit...or NOT

ps: And yes, despite what Kyle has posted before, it's EASY to do and there are lots of ways to accomplish giving certain types of (or a specific web site's) traffic priority (higher or lower). Heck, if I didn't like you AT ALL, I might just send your traffic down the "Information Dirt Road" instead of the "Information Super Highway"...you know, the one Al Gore invented

[stomachmonkey]

Transit / peering and how data moves amongst the Tier 1 and 2 providers, CDN's and content owners is so vastly complicated, (due in large part to the fact that the financial agreements are a closely held secret), that it's near impossible for anyone to really know what the **** is going on.

Netflix is a poor example to use for either side. They do things to maximize their ROI that end up biting them in the ass.

Akami used to be their CDN. Akami paid transit to the Tier's. Cogent had peering arrangements that they thought they could move Netflix traffic under. So Netflix dropped Akami and went with Cogent but the Tier 1's said uhhhh, NO! We've seen their traffic and we got paid for it yesterday, you are not getting it free tomorrow.

Netflix also manages their data poorly. They don't place servers inside last mile providers networks and don't split their traffic like other content providers do meaning it hits networks from one spot vs coming in from multiple pipes.

I'm still a proponent of Net Neutrality.

I don't trust last mile providers one bit. They will abuse every advantage they can.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

....I'm still a proponent of Net Neutrality.

I don't trust last mile providers one bit. They will abuse every advantage they can.

Last mile, first mile, and every mile in between for me when big $ are at stake

Didn't realize you shop at MaroonsR'Us though

[slakjaw]

You just said the problem is netflix using dirty tactics. How can you still be in favor of net neutrality?

How can anyone tell me that bit torrents traffic is every bit equal to emergency services like 911 traffic. Net neutrality says all traffic is equal no matter what 911 or torrents. I call BS to that BS.

Transit / peering and how data moves amongst the Tier 1 and 2 providers, CDN's and content owners is so vastly complicated, (due in large part to the fact that the financial agreements are a closely held secret), that it's near impossible for anyone to really know what the **** is going on.



Netflix is a poor example to use for either side. They do things to maximize their ROI that end up biting them in the ass.



Akami used to be their CDN. Akami paid transit to the Tier's. Cogent had peering arrangements that they thought they could move Netflix traffic under. So Netflix dropped Akami and went with Cogent but the Tier 1's said uhhhh, NO! We've seen their traffic and we got paid for it yesterday, you are not getting it free tomorrow.



Netflix also manages their data poorly. They don't place servers inside last mile providers networks and don't split their traffic like other content providers do meaning it hits networks from one spot vs coming in from multiple pipes.



I'm still a proponent of Net Neutrality.



I don't trust last mile providers one bit. They will abuse every advantage they can.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts

....Bottomline, net neutrality is a good thing - if the network providers need more funds to pay for the additional use of services like Netflix, then charge the eventual users of those services (the eyeballs watching the shows).
.....

Why you lib nut maroon you

[slakjaw]

That would rock!!! I can't wait to listen to you guys complain even more. Waaaaa it's sooooo expensive waaaa.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by slakjaw

You just said the problem is netflix using dirty tactics. How can you still be in favor of net neutrality?

How can anyone tell me that bit torrents traffic is every bit equal to emergency services like 911 traffic. Net neutrality says all traffic is equal no matter what 911 or torrents. I call BS to that BS.

I did not say they use dirty tactics.

They could do as other content providers have done and spend some money to improve the quality of their service but they don't.

Either they are not very bright or their margins (which I suspect has a lot to do with it) are razor thin or they are just greedy.

And BT traffic is way down year over year. The low cost and convenience of streaming content providers has taken a big chunk of it.

Let's face it, the average Joe consumer will happily pay $7.00 per month for the convenience of hitting the Netflix icon on their Apple TV over finding the torrent, waiting for the d/l. Playing the file only to find out the resolution sucked and it's in Swahili with Russian subtitles so they have to go grab another torrent, rinse, repeat.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts

I wouldn't say "nothing". Firstly the whole argument over net neutrality is one of money ($$$). The networks want to make more $$$ or pay for infrastructure improvements by charging the people who actually use the network. In this case, they are going after Netflix, who will in turn just flip around and charge the end consumer more. So, in general, it's the same thing, just being billed differently.

I think any model where "unlimited use" is the norm is bad for business because it causes inefficiencies, and also doesn't necessarily reward infrastructure improvements. Why would the cable companies upgrade their networks if they are not going to get any additional revenue (ROI) from it? The answer is they won't. This might be one of the reasons why the US loses in the bandwidth global "race" because the consumers are not willing (or able) to pay for gigabit speeds.

If net neutrality passes, then I think the "last mile" providers will then move to the consumer to have them pay for their bandwidth usage. Is it fair that a Netflix user should pay the same rate as grandma next door who simply checks the weather online? Not really - people who use more should pay more - that model is best to maintain the infrastructure that supports *everyone*.

So, just to summarize, I think having a neutral playing field in content delivery is a good thing in principle. However, it should be coupled with a pay-as-you-go model where heavy users contribute to the costs of maintaining the network (or you just raise prices to distribute the costs across many end users).

Bottomline, net neutrality is a good thing - if the network providers need more funds to pay for the additional use of services like Netflix, then charge the eventual users of those services (the eyeballs watching the shows).

-Wayne

Agree for the most part but in terms of pay per usage the concern is really peak usage times which is ultimately what determines how big a pipe the provider needs.

Like a road it can suck at rush hour but 3 am on a Wednesday night it'll be clear sailing.

So really they are looking at what's the smallest pipe they can get away with for 20 hours and deal with some congestion for 4 hours a day.

It's not cost effective to build something that is underutilized more than over.