Net Neutrailty is back

[ksen]

It was an artificial congestion created by the ISPs because of business disputes, i.e. the ISPs were not satisfied just getting paid by their customers but as part of their entitlement mentality that controlling content access is also what they should be doing they wanted to also get paid by certain content providers (Netflix) in order to relieve the congestion that they themselves created.

I don't follow here. If there is a spat between an ISP and Cogent, what does that have to do with an ISP milking Netflix?

Netflix is a Cogent customer.

The whole Cogent dispute was about getting Netflix to pay because Netflix is the main threat to the ISP's cable television businesses.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It was an artificial congestion created by the ISPs because of business disputes, i.e. the ISPs were not satisfied just getting paid by their customers but as part of their entitlement mentality that controlling content access is also what they should be doing they wanted to also get paid by certain content providers (Netflix) in order to relieve the congestion that they themselves created.

I don't follow here. If there is a spat between an ISP and Cogent, what does that have to do with an ISP milking Netflix?

Netflix, being a third of Internet traffic, was the driver for increased bandwidth costs through the network and they weren't getting enough revenue in it for their minds. So they want to Netflix and say pay for a direct to us and you don't have to worry about the middle man and congestion. It's a decision that businesses make all the time about where to have circuits and with whom.

 

[ksen]

Cogent and Comcast decide to have a peering agreement and create a connection between them.

That's an extremely sugar-coated way of putting it.

The reality is that Comcast demanded a more expensive peering agreement and Cogent/Netflix said "fuck you" so all of a sudden degradation happened with the Cogent transit points. Weird.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't follow here. If there is a spat between an ISP and Cogent, what does that have to do with an ISP milking Netflix?

Netflix, being a third of Internet traffic, was the driver for increased bandwidth costs through the network and they weren't getting enough revenue in it for their minds. So they want to Netflix and say pay for a direct to us and you don't have to worry about the middle man and congestion. It's a decision that businesses make all the time about where to have circuits and with whom.

And this is complete bullshit. If they were selling X bandwidth/sec service, they have no right to go after the people who provide services that actually allow people to use it. If they are panicking about the cost of having that much data go through, they shouldn't be offering rates as they are. But it is a moot poi t; it has been repeatedly proven that it is entirely possible to run gigabit per customer at the same costs as Comcast charges for 50 megabit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But what happened with Netflix was that Cogent and the other providers had a bottleneck at their peering point and that they both pointed at each and said he pay for more to increase the bandwidth of the bottle neck and neither side budged. It wouldn't fall under the new rules of net neutrality.

And I disagree, people should be able to pay for a higher service when there is congestion. It's paying for a different model with service that needs a better guarantee.

Except the cost of increasing the connections at the peering point was small compared to what they were asking for. Netflix offered to pay for the additional hardware but that wasn't enough for the ISPs who see cable dollars going to Netflix instead.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But what happened with Netflix was that Cogent and the other providers had a bottleneck at their peering point and that they both pointed at each and said he pay for more to increase the bandwidth of the bottle neck and neither side budged. It wouldn't fall under the new rules of net neutrality.

And I disagree, people should be able to pay for a higher service when there is congestion. It's paying for a different model with service that needs a better guarantee.

"bottleneck"

Cogent Now Admits They Slowed Down Netflix’s Traffic, Creating A Fast Lane & Slow Lane

And what's really stupid about it is the internet should have a slow lane. When you're tossing big files around you're going to walk away anyway, if the file is a bit slower it's nowhere near as important as if your Skype call goes slow.

However, it should be customer-driven. There should be a means by which packets can be designated low-priority, the tradeoff being that you're charged less for the bandwidth they use.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The basic problem is that most customers are buying internet from companies that also sell entertainment. They don't like the internet being used to buy entertainment instead of buying what they offer. That's why bandwidth caps have shown up (something that didn't used to exist except in small towns) and all this garbage about Netflix.

It's also why the feds should step in--we have a clear case of abuse of monopoly power. (Strangely enough the Netflix issues don't happen much in cities with competitive markets for internet.)

- - - Updated - - -

It sounds like they claim they are attempting to prioritize traffic during periods of congestion to preserve the best overall experience for their subscribers.

If they can identify Netflix traffic they should realize it's fairly high priority traffic, not low priority traffic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Since the local cable company started whining about capacity they have increased my speed 5x but the bandwidth only 20%.

 

[blastula]

Question. Why hasn't anyone given any links about whether there is a the technical reason for congestion? Almost 200 posts, and still waiting...

 

[coloradoatheist]

Question. Why hasn't anyone given any links about whether there is a the technical reason for congestion? Almost 200 posts, and still waiting...

Unfortunately to know that we would proprietary information from Verizon and Comcast. Do you think they hand it out freely?

 

[Jarhyn]

Question. Why hasn't anyone given any links about whether there is a the technical reason for congestion? Almost 200 posts, and still waiting...

Unfortunately to know that we would proprietary information from Verizon and Comcast. Do you think they hand it out freely?

There's no reason not to, unless they are doing something awful, in which case they are also assholes in addition. Either tere is a technical reason, which would bolster their arguments against neutrality, or there isn't and the only way they can save face is by hiding from the lie.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Unfortunately to know that we would proprietary information from Verizon and Comcast. Do you think they hand it out freely?

There's no reason not to, unless they are doing something awful, in which case they are also assholes in addition. Either tere is a technical reason, which would bolster their arguments against neutrality, or there isn't and the only way they can save face is by hiding from the lie.

We would have to discuss too what you mean by technically. Because technically if you had a hundred million dollars to burn you could have different companies dig out fiber for your house to the Amazon data center and have it directly connect to your own piece of hardware and then directly connect to a Netflix server that is dedicated to you. You could have a one gig connection personally if you paid a few companies enough money. However while technically feasible, it's not practical. So all connections that most of us connect to the Internet are shared, and it's the management of shared gear that's the technical challenge.

 

[Jarhyn]

There's no reason not to, unless they are doing something awful, in which case they are also assholes in addition. Either tere is a technical reason, which would bolster their arguments against neutrality, or there isn't and the only way they can save face is by hiding from the lie.

We would have to discuss too what you mean by technically. Because technically if you had a hundred million dollars to burn you could have different companies dig out fiber for your house to the Amazon data center and have it directly connect to your own piece of hardware and then directly connect to a Netflix server that is dedicated to you. You could have a one gig connection personally if you paid a few companies enough money. However while technically feasible, it's not practical. So all connections that most of us connect to the Internet are shared, and it's the management of shared gear that's the technical challenge.

There is a dark fiber not 100 feet from my home. USInternet is already running 1 gigabit fiber to the home with no artificial bottlenecks. If the service can run up that much throughput, you can consume that much throughput. In fact they just rolled out 10 gigabit, and google fiber did the same damn thing. Detroit is rolling out 100 gigabit end user connections. So the evidence is on the side of 'they're just too fucking lazy/greedy, and want to minimize data overhead rather than provide a better service.'

If there really is a technical reason behind the bottlenecks, releasing that 'proprietary' information will protect them. Unless it doesn't exist and they are full of shit, which they are.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We would have to discuss too what you mean by technically. Because technically if you had a hundred million dollars to burn you could have different companies dig out fiber for your house to the Amazon data center and have it directly connect to your own piece of hardware and then directly connect to a Netflix server that is dedicated to you. You could have a one gig connection personally if you paid a few companies enough money. However while technically feasible, it's not practical. So all connections that most of us connect to the Internet are shared, and it's the management of shared gear that's the technical challenge.

There is a dark fiber not 100 feet from my home. USInternet is already running 1 gigabit fiber to the home with no artificial bottlenecks. If the service can run up that much throughput, you can consume that much throughput. In fact they just rolled out 10 gigabit, and google fiber did the same damn thing. Detroit is rolling out 100 gigabit end user connections. So the evidence is on the side of 'they're just too fucking lazy/greedy, and want to minimize data overhead rather than provide a better service.'

If there really is a technical reason behind the bottlenecks, releasing that 'proprietary' information will protect them. Unless it doesn't exist and they are full of shit, which they are.

But where can a corporation with a market cap over $150 billion be able to find access to the capital to perform such improvements to their infrastructure. After all, when SBC bought Ameritech and then AT&T, they made it clear to the Federal Government that it'd be impossible to improve their services notably due to the mergers, and that'd lead to higher prices and lower competition.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

There is a dark fiber not 100 feet from my home. USInternet is already running 1 gigabit fiber to the home with no artificial bottlenecks. If the service can run up that much throughput, you can consume that much throughput. In fact they just rolled out 10 gigabit, and google fiber did the same damn thing. Detroit is rolling out 100 gigabit end user connections. So the evidence is on the side of 'they're just too fucking lazy/greedy, and want to minimize data overhead rather than provide a better service.'

If there really is a technical reason behind the bottlenecks, releasing that 'proprietary' information will protect them. Unless it doesn't exist and they are full of shit, which they are.

But where can a corporation with a market cap over $150 billion be able to find access to the capital to perform such improvements to their infrastructure. After all, when SBC bought Ameritech and then AT&T, they made it clear to the Federal Government that it'd be impossible to improve their services notably due to the mergers, and that'd lead to higher prices and lower competition.

I often think, "Will my daily activities hurt the benevolent Comcast?", for they are a very poor company with a razor thin profit margin.

 

[ksen]

Question. Why hasn't anyone given any links about whether there is a the technical reason for congestion? Almost 200 posts, and still waiting...

Why take the time to look for and post links when you can just as easily beep-boop your way through the thread?

- - - Updated - - -

However while technically feasible, it's not practical. So all connections that most of us connect to the Internet are shared, and it's the management of shared gear that's the technical challenge.

Wrong, the M-Labs report makes if very clear it's not a technical challenge but rather a business relationship challenge.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why take the time to look for and post links when you can just as easily beep-boop your way through the thread?

- - - Updated - - -

However while technically feasible, it's not practical. So all connections that most of us connect to the Internet are shared, and it's the management of shared gear that's the technical challenge.

Wrong, the M-Labs report makes if very clear it's not a technical challenge but rather a business relationship challenge.

Just to make it clearer, three companies in one market had similar problems with Congent. Another company didn't, during the exact same period. We call that a "red flag".

 

[coloradoatheist]

We would have to discuss too what you mean by technically. Because technically if you had a hundred million dollars to burn you could have different companies dig out fiber for your house to the Amazon data center and have it directly connect to your own piece of hardware and then directly connect to a Netflix server that is dedicated to you. You could have a one gig connection personally if you paid a few companies enough money. However while technically feasible, it's not practical. So all connections that most of us connect to the Internet are shared, and it's the management of shared gear that's the technical challenge.

There is a dark fiber not 100 feet from my home. USInternet is already running 1 gigabit fiber to the home with no artificial bottlenecks. If the service can run up that much throughput, you can consume that much throughput. In fact they just rolled out 10 gigabit, and google fiber did the same damn thing. Detroit is rolling out 100 gigabit end user connections. So the evidence is on the side of 'they're just too fucking lazy/greedy, and want to minimize data overhead rather than provide a better service.'

If there really is a technical reason behind the bottlenecks, releasing that 'proprietary' information will protect them. Unless it doesn't exist and they are full of shit, which they are.

You are talking about different technologies here. Comcast's network runs on its cable network, not fiber so it's bottle necks are different then what the bottlenecks that USInternet will face.

 

[ksen]

Comcast's network runs on its cable network, not fiber so it's bottle necks are different then what the bottlenecks that USInternet will face.

If only Comcast had the ability to start rolling out upgraded fiber networks.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Why take the time to look for and post links when you can just as easily beep-boop your way through the thread?

- - - Updated - - -



Wrong, the M-Labs report makes if very clear it's not a technical challenge but rather a business relationship challenge.

Just to make it clearer, three companies in one market had similar problems with Congent. Another company didn't, during the exact same period. We call that a "red flag".

And if there was other providers in that market that didn't have it, people could switch over. So the decision comcast would have to decide is how many people are going to switch to the new provider.

- - - Updated - - -

Comcast's network runs on its cable network, not fiber so it's bottle necks are different then what the bottlenecks that USInternet will face.

If only Comcast had the ability to start rolling out upgraded fiber networks.

And the question was who was going to pay for that upgrade? comcast wanted Netflix to pay for some of it too since they were the ones driving the upgrade.