Net Neutrailty is back

[fromderinside]

I am not an expert in the technology issues here.

Obviously

Are you saying that some providers, such as Netflix, can not have such bandwidth demands that they cause performance for other users to lag?

No ken's saying that some service providers such as Charter are slowing service to Netflix unless they pay more than they have already contracted because Charter has similar service interests in the area and that they are also actually slowing rates from those available to customers who have current bandwidth contract.

And that some applications, such as VOIP, are not more sensitive to performance issues than others?

If one doesn't have the technology to transmit sound such as Charter needn't provide that bandwidth until the VOIP interest either upgrades capability or buys the necessary bandwidth contract or when Charter develops the capacity to handle VOIP.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually it's one that I think both sides will exaggerate the drawbacks or the benefits. The Internet has gone about 30 years without government interface, and all of a sudden with one or two small problems that were fixed that the government must get involved.

Understood. Because the Internet worked just fine back when streaming video didn't exist, once streaming video became mainstream and there were a few minor instances of ISPs throttling video streaming data (in order to get more money to allow the streams to go unhindered), we can pretend that all is well as the invisible hand whacks off the corporate penis.

The increased bandwidth was the concern with scarce and sometimes costly upgrades. So the argument is who pays for the increased use of resources? Is it the users of the increased consumption (netflix users), or all comcast users or companies in the middle.

Interesting. Could you share with us the costs of these upgrades and what was upgraded?

I think they did something simple, though it said the deal wasn't public. Netflix paid for a Comcast circuit or multiple circuits.

So you don't know that they upgraded anything or what the cost was. Nice.

the said the deal was in millions and that Netflix and Comcast would cut out the middlemen like Cogent and Level 3. It would be buying a circuit or multiple circuits to their data center. It's a normal process business follows.

Impressive how no one was complaining about bad congested internet service before the hijack, and then after the hijack, all that has really changed was that Netflix was now paying money to allow the data they already paid to put on the Internet to go through the Comcast Toll Plaza.

 

[ksen]

Study Finds Internet Congestion Really Is About Business, Not Technology

M-Lab sat down and did a long-term study measuring how internet traffic moves through all those different transit tributaries, so to speak. The full report (a href=”http://www.measurementlab.net/static/observatory/M-Lab_Interconnection_Study_US.pdf”>PDF) delves into some of the technicalities of measuring and quantifying interconnection and is kind of a hefty read. There are, however, some clear key take-aways.

From a high level, you see some of the patterns you’d expect. For example, there’s a lot less network congestion at 3 o’clock in the morning then there is at prime-time, between 7 and 11 p.m.

But beyond that, one pattern began clearly to emerge. The network congestion M-Lab was seeing, they write, doesn’t appear to be connected to the technical limitations of ISPs or the connection points themselves. Instead, it seems, “business relationships between ISPs, and not major technical problems, are at the root of the problems we observed.”

There is no technical reason for congestion.

 

[ksen]

Are Bandwidth Caps About Easing Congestion or Protecting Television?

There is no technical reason for congestion.

 

[ksen]

ISPs tell government that congestion is “not a problem,” impose data caps anyway

Can we be done with the "congestion" excuse now?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Data caps on say Sat Internet makes technical sense. Otherwise, however...

Are Bandwidth Caps About Easing Congestion or Protecting Television?

There is no technical reason for congestion.

Data caps make sense if you are trying to squash the uber power user who is streaming bandwidth within the 0.1% range. But with streaming becoming very common, Data caps that have already been established for a family of four certainly isn't exactly uncommon now.

 

[coloradoatheist]

ISPs tell government that congestion is “not a problem,” impose data caps anyway

Can we be done with the "congestion" excuse now?

Of course consumers don't want caps because people don't like being told that hey it was a buffet, but now you have to buy each piece separately. And they don't want to have to worry about it. But congestion is a major issue that ISPs work with on a daily basis.

 

[ksen]

Hey colorado, thanks for not reading any of the links I provided.

- - - Updated - - -

Data caps on say Sat Internet makes technical sense. Otherwise, however...

Are Bandwidth Caps About Easing Congestion or Protecting Television?

There is no technical reason for congestion.

Data caps make sense if you are trying to squash the uber power user who is streaming bandwidth within the 0.1% range. But with streaming becoming very common, Data caps that have already been established for a family of four certainly isn't exactly uncommon now.

The stories and reports I've been digging up have been pretty clear that data caps and congestion may be applicable to mobile and wireless users but for those using a wired modem they are not technical issues.

 

[fromderinside]

Of course consumers don't want caps because people don't like being told that hey it was a buffet, but now you have to buy each piece separately. And they don't want to have to worry about it. But congestion is a major issue that ISPs work with on a daily basis.

Wow. Things are getting tight? Why then are there five fiber trunks running down the oregon coast from the late nineties that aren't even lit yet?

I'm thinking its because stockholders wanted to cut back development and put profits in their pockets because the superhighway wasn't the Y2K bonanza they had imagined. Stockholders are such brakes to infrastructure.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Hey colorado, thanks for not reading any of the links I provided.

- - - Updated - - -

Data caps on say Sat Internet makes technical sense. Otherwise, however...
Data caps make sense if you are trying to squash the uber power user who is streaming bandwidth within the 0.1% range. But with streaming becoming very common, Data caps that have already been established for a family of four certainly isn't exactly uncommon now.

The stories and reports I've been digging up have been pretty clear that data caps and congestion may be applicable to mobile and wireless users but for those using a wired modem they are not technical issues.

Have you worked at an ISP?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Of course consumers don't want caps because people don't like being told that hey it was a buffet, but now you have to buy each piece separately. And they don't want to have to worry about it. But congestion is a major issue that ISPs work with on a daily basis.

Wow. Things are getting tight? Why then are there five fiber trunks running down the oregon coast from the late nineties that aren't even lit yet?

I'm thinking its because stockholders wanted to cut back development and put profits in their pockets because the superhighway wasn't the Y2K bonanza they had imagined. Stockholders are such brakes to infrastructure.

It depends on the specific ISP but yes since in several of the technologies used, performance of a user is affected by what other people are doing on their connection.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course consumers don't want caps because people don't like being told that hey it was a buffet, but now you have to buy each piece separately. And they don't want to have to worry about it. But congestion is a major issue that ISPs work with on a daily basis.

Wow. Things are getting tight? Why then are there five fiber trunks running down the oregon coast from the late nineties that aren't even lit yet?

You aren't referencing the overly overbuilt fiber network that the Fiber companies like Level III, T Cubed, Williams, etc... built, are you?

I'm thinking its because stockholders wanted to cut back development and put profits in their pockets because the superhighway wasn't the Y2K bonanza they had imagined. Stockholders are such brakes to infrastructure.

Or that the grid was way overbuilt in the 90s. Granted, that gives a good deal of space for expansion. That is why people across the nation aren't having trouble with Netflix, and only with specific ISPs who are fucking the line that Netflix is coming over on, once on their local ISP network.

 

[ksen]

Hey colorado, thanks for not reading any of the links I provided.

Have you worked at an ISP?

Have you read any of the stories and reports I've linked? I'm assuming those people are familiar enough with the ISP industry to knowledgeably write on it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Wow. Things are getting tight? Why then are there five fiber trunks running down the oregon coast from the late nineties that aren't even lit yet?

You aren't referencing the overly overbuilt fiber network that the Fiber companies like Level III, T Cubed, Williams, etc... built, are you?

I'm thinking its because stockholders wanted to cut back development and put profits in their pockets because the superhighway wasn't the Y2K bonanza they had imagined. Stockholders are such brakes to infrastructure.

Or that the grid was way overbuilt in the 90s. Granted, that gives a good deal of space for expansion. That is why people across the nation aren't having trouble with Netflix, and only with specific ISPs who are fucking the line that Netflix is coming over on, once on their local ISP network.

Except it's more than just fiber. The speeds of cable modems are influenced by the number of people using that particular line at the same time.

 

[ksen]

There is no congestion. They made it up. Until you can accept that basic fact or provide evidence to the contrary there's no point discussing this with you.

 

[coloradoatheist]

There is no congestion. They made it up. Until you can accept that basic fact or provide evidence to the contrary there's no point discussing this with you.

Congestion where and at which time? There is congestion all the time on the links, it's a matter of how much, and what the user impact is. I have worked at an ISP and know how many problems were speed/bandwidth related issues.

 

[ksen]

There is no congestion. They made it up. Until you can accept that basic fact or provide evidence to the contrary there's no point discussing this with you.

Congestion where and at which time?

Man, if only someone had taken the time to dig up links and post them here with this information already laid out in them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You aren't referencing the overly overbuilt fiber network that the Fiber companies like Level III, T Cubed, Williams, etc... built, are you?

I'm thinking its because stockholders wanted to cut back development and put profits in their pockets because the superhighway wasn't the Y2K bonanza they had imagined. Stockholders are such brakes to infrastructure.

Or that the grid was way overbuilt in the 90s. Granted, that gives a good deal of space for expansion. That is why people across the nation aren't having trouble with Netflix, and only with specific ISPs who are fucking the line that Netflix is coming over on, once on their local ISP network.

Except it's more than just fiber. The speeds of cable modems are influenced by the number of people using that particular line at the same time.

Except no one noticed the congestion ever... it took the throttling of the lines by the ISP themselves for people to notice anything was wrong... and what was wrong was that the ISP was throttling the Netflix data.

 

[fromderinside]

Except it's more than just fiber. The speeds of cable modems are influenced by the number of people using that particular line at the same time.

Yeah, I know. My cable company just get their act together to complete fiber circles along the coast because it takes away from their profit cow in Portland. Oh gosh. Every storm brings another cable outage. No backup. I wonder why? Yet Portland has 300 mbps service with no outages. hmmmnnn

 

[coloradoatheist]

You aren't referencing the overly overbuilt fiber network that the Fiber companies like Level III, T Cubed, Williams, etc... built, are you?

I'm thinking its because stockholders wanted to cut back development and put profits in their pockets because the superhighway wasn't the Y2K bonanza they had imagined. Stockholders are such brakes to infrastructure.

Or that the grid was way overbuilt in the 90s. Granted, that gives a good deal of space for expansion. That is why people across the nation aren't having trouble with Netflix, and only with specific ISPs who are fucking the line that Netflix is coming over on, once on their local ISP network.

Except it's more than just fiber. The speeds of cable modems are influenced by the number of people using that particular line at the same time.

Except no one noticed the congestion ever... it took the throttling of the lines by the ISP themselves for people to notice anything was wrong... and what was wrong was that the ISP was throttling the Netflix data.

How do you know no one ever experienced the congestion? Were you working at Comcast support at the time?

- - - Updated - - -

Congestion where and at which time?

Man, if only someone had taken the time to dig up links and post them here with this information already laid out in them.

We are talking two seperate issues here, one the day to day operations and one for the Netflix issue a while ago.