Net Neutrality in Danger?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Your position, and that of those agreeing with you, is ridiculous on its face. It needs no further investigation, rebuttal, or counter argument to be tossed aside as unreasonable and unworkable.

No one who knows anything about how networks work would enact your version of "net neutrality" as it would fuck the whole Internet. It's really just that simple.

This is all incredible seeing that the Internet has been working this way for quite a while now. I love it when people claim something that is working can't possibly work.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't get it. How would allowing people to select their own content without having content suppliers pay for access bring the internet to a crippling halt?

I'm also curious what he has to say. But content providers do have to pay to bring their stuff online...

Exactly. They have already paid.

 

[coloradoatheist]

This is all incredible seeing that the Internet has been working this way for quite a while now. I love it when people claim something that is working can't possibly work.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't get it. How would allowing people to select their own content without having content suppliers pay for access bring the internet to a crippling halt?

I'm also curious what he has to say. But content providers do have to pay to bring their stuff online...

Exactly. They have already paid.

Squirrel said without paying. But Content providers certainly do have to worry about where there content is located and how much. If Netflix put their servers in Australia then the people in the US would greatly suffer and they wouldn't use. So it's always a question of where and how much to pay for.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Latency has a big affect on the throughput.
.

Only if you have a lot of interaction. Streamed data (netflix etc) is not affected by latency: viewing a film 2s later is not an issue.

Yes and no. The streaming is going to have a bit rate needed and as long speed and latency time are within the specs, it will be okay. But if your further away and pipe is too small than the quality will suffer. You could always download the whole stream and then watch it later.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Only if you have a lot of interaction. Streamed data (netflix etc) is not affected by latency: viewing a film 2s later is not an issue.

Yes and no. The streaming is going to have a bit rate needed and as long speed and latency time are within the specs, it will be okay. But if your further away and pipe is too small than the quality will suffer. You could always download the whole stream and then watch it later.

I'm curious, what in the heck am I paying AT&T for, if Netflix should be paying AT&T to unload their content across the AT&T network?

 

[Juma]

Only if you have a lot of interaction. Streamed data (netflix etc) is not affected by latency: viewing a film 2s later is not an issue.

Yes and no. The streaming is going to have a bit rate needed and as long speed and latency time are within the specs, it will be okay. But if your further away and pipe is too small than the quality will suffer. You could always download the whole stream and then watch it later.

It has nothing with being "further away". if the bit rate is low then its not a problem of latency, its a problem of troughput. (Bits/sec)

(On a side note: i uses an application for rehearsing music with other players over the internet. There you have a real latency problem and since latency increases with distance there is a limit on how far we can be separated. i have successfulky played with other people 500 km away.)

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yes and no. The streaming is going to have a bit rate needed and as long speed and latency time are within the specs, it will be okay. But if your further away and pipe is too small than the quality will suffer. You could always download the whole stream and then watch it later.

I'm curious, what in the heck am I paying AT&T for, if Netflix should be paying AT&T to unload their content across the AT&T network?

You are paying for some of it, but you are paying for the access to everything, not just access to one site. And more bandwidth pays for better performance overall, but it's not a guarantee for any specific site.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yes and no. The streaming is going to have a bit rate needed and as long speed and latency time are within the specs, it will be okay. But if your further away and pipe is too small than the quality will suffer. You could always download the whole stream and then watch it later.

It has nothing with being "further away". if the bit rate is low then its not a problem of latency, its a problem of troughput. (Bits/sec)

(On a side note: i uses an application for rehearsing music with other players over the internet. There you have a real latency problem and since latency increases with distance there is a limit on how far we can be separated. i have successfulky played with other people 500 km away.)

It depends on which application you were using, if it was TCP or UDP. The throughput on a TCP stream that is 100Mbps at 0ms latency drops down to 16Mb at 30 ms and 5Mb at 90ms. Most applications don't care that much, but a TCP stream will if that number gets too low.

 

[bilby]

If latency was a problem for streaming video, then a DVD that took a week to arrive from Amazon would be unwatchable.

But it isn't, because a one week latency is irrelevant; all that matters to the viewing experience is bandwidth, and a DVD has plenty of that. Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of magnetic tapes. (See also 'sneakernet').

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm curious, what in the heck am I paying AT&T for, if Netflix should be paying AT&T to unload their content across the AT&T network?

You are paying for some of it, but you are paying for the access to everything, not just access to one site. And more bandwidth pays for better performance overall, but it's not a guarantee for any specific site.

Actually it is a guarantee right now, because that is how Broadband is currently being regulated.

 

[coloradoatheist]

If latency was a problem for streaming video, then a DVD that took a week to arrive from Amazon would be unwatchable.

But it isn't, because a one week latency is irrelevant; all that matters to the viewing experience is bandwidth, and a DVD has plenty of that. Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of magnetic tapes. (See also 'sneakernet').

It's the combination of both that matters, throughtput. That's dependent on latency and bandwidth. But since netflix does have a lot of places it delivers its content from the latency doesn't matter as much since they have it in different places. So they deciding factor is usually bandwidth. But that's for videos. Video games on the other hand don't require as much bandwidth, they care about latency. So how can a ISP guarantee latency to every gaming site out there?

 

[coloradoatheist]

You are paying for some of it, but you are paying for the access to everything, not just access to one site. And more bandwidth pays for better performance overall, but it's not a guarantee for any specific site.

Actually it is a guarantee right now, because that is how Broadband is currently being regulated.

But you aren't paying for bandwidth to Netflix. You are paying for the bandwidth from your house to the local ISP.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually it is a guarantee right now, because that is how Broadband is currently being regulated.

But you aren't paying for bandwidth to Netflix. You are paying for the bandwidth from your house to the local ISP.

And broadband is regulated so that the ISP can't arbitrarily "fuck with" (I believe that is in the specification) any particular data. That is what you support in changing. Making so that when I pay for Broadband, I'm actually not paying for any sort of general range in download speed, but rather what the ISP wants me to be able to download at (site by site).

 

[JonA]

I don't get it. How would allowing people to select their own content without having content suppliers pay for access bring the internet to a crippling halt?

That would not. But that isn't the definition of "net neutrality" that Juma is peddling. Making the Internet "universally available" to anybody for any reason isn't workable. Some people's reasons will be malicious and intended to deny other people's access.

The information moving through the Internet has to be managed and that means interfering with traffic based on its content and origin.

It's just that simple.

 

[JonA]

Actually it is a guarantee right now, because that is how Broadband is currently being regulated.

But you aren't paying for bandwidth to Netflix. You are paying for the bandwidth from your house to the local ISP.

Which ISPs charge "for the bandwidth"?

 

[coloradoatheist]

But you aren't paying for bandwidth to Netflix. You are paying for the bandwidth from your house to the local ISP.

And broadband is regulated so that the ISP can't arbitrarily "fuck with" (I believe that is in the specification) any particular data. That is what you support in changing. Making so that when I pay for Broadband, I'm actually not paying for any sort of general range in download speed, but rather what the ISP wants me to be able to download at (site by site).

But as Juma pointed out below you, they do sometimes do this in terms of blocking attacks, especially from China and other areas. When they see an attack from China should they stop it if it brings down all their customers?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And broadband is regulated so that the ISP can't arbitrarily "fuck with" (I believe that is in the specification) any particular data. That is what you support in changing. Making so that when I pay for Broadband, I'm actually not paying for any sort of general range in download speed, but rather what the ISP wants me to be able to download at (site by site).

But as Juma pointed out below you, they do sometimes do this in terms of blocking attacks, especially from China and other areas. When they see an attack from China should they stop it if it brings down all their customers?

Do you love America?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't get it. How would allowing people to select their own content without having content suppliers pay for access bring the internet to a crippling halt?

That would not. But that isn't the definition of "net neutrality" that Juma is peddling. Making the Internet "universally available" to anybody for any reason isn't workable. Some people's reasons will be malicious and intended to deny other people's access.

The information moving through the Internet has to be managed and that means interfering with traffic based on its content and origin.

FFS! People aren't saying that data should be flung into the intertubes and anarchy should prevail.

We are arguing that ISPs which are monopoly-ish shouldn't be able to hijack streams from third parties in order to extort money from them. You folks are arguing that ISPs should be allowed to prevent DoS attacks as some sort of rebuttal.

 

[coloradoatheist]

That would not. But that isn't the definition of "net neutrality" that Juma is peddling. Making the Internet "universally available" to anybody for any reason isn't workable. Some people's reasons will be malicious and intended to deny other people's access.

The information moving through the Internet has to be managed and that means interfering with traffic based on its content and origin.

FFS! People aren't saying that data should be flung into the intertubes and anarchy should prevail.

We are arguing that ISPs which are monopoly-ish shouldn't be able to hijack streams from third parties in order to extort money from them. You folks are arguing that ISPs should be allowed to prevent DoS attacks as some sort of rebuttal.

But that was what Netflix traffic was doing at choke points in the network between providers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

FFS! People aren't saying that data should be flung into the intertubes and anarchy should prevail.

We are arguing that ISPs which are monopoly-ish shouldn't be able to hijack streams from third parties in order to extort money from them. You folks are arguing that ISPs should be allowed to prevent DoS attacks as some sort of rebuttal.

But that was what Netflix traffic was doing at choke points in the network between providers.

You forgot the quotes around choke point. You also forgot to include the term alleged in front of it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But that was what Netflix traffic was doing at choke points in the network between providers.

You forgot the quotes around choke point. You also forgot to include the term alleged in front of it.

The issue was that Netflix didn't want to use the CDN network because they were going to be charged more for it, so they went to using Level 3 and Cogent. The choke points became the increased utilization where those two met the other providers and the other ISPs and Cogent assumed the normal agreement would allow the increase in usage.