JonA
Senior Member
Proof we can manage Internet 'traffic' without the world exploding...
Or maybe we need 'highway neutrality'?
Or maybe we need 'highway neutrality'?
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"?
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.
Proof we can manage Internet 'traffic' without the world exploding...
Or maybe we need 'highway neutrality'?
And Netflix isn't choking anything as Netflix is not delivering any traffic onto the ISP networks that their own customers aren't requesting.
The ISPs sold access for 30 ton trucks and realized their highways can only support all of their customers driving 10 ton trucks.
Where your analogy is on the mark is that freight is, like internet access should be, a common carrier.
That's a pretty slimy position to take. Netflix profits from its use of the Internet and from everyone else's easy access to it.
The ISPs sold access for 30 ton trucks and realized their highways can only support all of their customers driving 10 ton trucks.
A not uncommon problem. Failure to foresee the popularity of a novel product is nothing new and not restricted to ISPs.
What do you believe to be the best way to deal with this?
Where your analogy is on the mark is that freight is, like internet access should be, a common carrier.
Even further on mark given that commercial traffic is charged more for access to the same roads as non-commercial traffic.
World still in one piece.
Go figure.
ISPs are whining that they want to be payed for content their customers are requesting.
If they're counting on X% of their customers underutilizing what they're selling then they had better get their models right, because that's entirely a problem of their own creation.
There's no residential vs commercial traffic in the case of residential ISPs. All traffic whether it's torrents, video streaming, or gaming is hopping outside of the residential ISP private net. Let's see how many 75/75 plans these guys sell if the only thing you can use their networks for is Comcast-to-Comcast, or Verizon-to-Verizon, or Cox-to-Cox email
The only load on their network is from content their customers request. Netflix traffic isn't going to flow through the Comcast network to hit a Verizon stream viewer or vice versa because their entire network is only set up to service leaf nodes.
They want to be paid in line with what it costs them to maintain and develop the network infrastructure and have decided - like software companies and like state licensing bureaus and DoTs - that a larger share of those payments should come from those whose use is the heaviest, most demanding, and most profitable.
Piping seamless HD Netflix videos into 9 of 10 houses on every block costs money.
Who should pay for that?
It's a simple question to answer.
If they're counting on X% of their customers underutilizing what they're selling then they had better get their models right, because that's entirely a problem of their own creation.
It's not a problem at all. The costs of installing and maintaining the infrastructure passes to the consumer. It would be irresponsible to install more than is needed and then charge the consumer for that extra that they don't get any benefit from.
It would also be a losing business model.
There's no residential vs commercial traffic in the case of residential ISPs. All traffic whether it's torrents, video streaming, or gaming is hopping outside of the residential ISP private net. Let's see how many 75/75 plans these guys sell if the only thing you can use their networks for is Comcast-to-Comcast, or Verizon-to-Verizon, or Cox-to-Cox email
The only load on their network is from content their customers request. Netflix traffic isn't going to flow through the Comcast network to hit a Verizon stream viewer or vice versa because their entire network is only set up to service leaf nodes.
You might as well say there's no commercial traffic on the highway because it is consumer demand that leads Wal-Mart to put all those semi-trucks on the road.
What congestion? Have you forgotten the last net neutrality thread where I posted, to you, proof that the claimed congestion by companies like Comcast was a bald-faced lie?I said no. You understand what No means, it answered your question.
Lots of talk for, "I think that monopolies should exert whatever pressure on the market they feel entitled to."Nope. I'm not required to pay for a person receiving a phone call I am making. They pay to receive, I pay to send, I do not pay for them to receive.
The MA Bells didn't use that pricing for phone calls, but cell phone companies did. But it's not the content that they care about. The MA bells try to solve it in a different way and still some cell plans solve it that way too. Do you know what they did? And another issue, TCP has a different mechanism that it makes it different than a standard phone call.
No, we're talking about how to price congestion. MA bells did it by charging more per minute than during low volume times.
Especially if that specific site is being purposefully throttled in order to extort more money out of it.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.
No, it wasn't as has been pointed out to you numerous times.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.
Sorry for being off topic for a moment but this is a decent opportunity to mention something I think is extremely important. If it is possible to block things from particular net users, it SHOULD be done. Particularly in the case of children. An internet for kids only. That is what I'm talking about.
Adult internet should only be available to devices registered to adults. It would be very hard to determine who is using what, but they should at least try to start splitting things. Making it look like we're trying is almost as important as actually trying. It will take decades to make a kid-friendly internet, so people should fain interest soon. Things need to get going on this.
Growing up with adult internet is messing kids up in the head. Kids don't need this. Don't you think they deserve something separate? What are your thoughts?
We filter (censor) the external stimuli to our children as best we can. This has always been a difficult task. The internet has made it near impossible. Just as a baby will inevitably cry from being passed around from one loving family member to another at a social gathering, just as a soldier will suffer from PTSD from close engagement with war, the quantity and content of what children experience on the internet should be filtered.
Is there evidence the internet is fucking our children up? I think the proper question is do we want children to be the test subjects in answering this question. We should want to raise emotionally intelligent children. That little genius will hardly be a value to society if he cannot bring himself to leave mom's basement.
I said no. You understand what No means, it answered your question.
Lots of talk for, "I think that monopolies should exert whatever pressure on the market they feel entitled to."Nope. I'm not required to pay for a person receiving a phone call I am making. They pay to receive, I pay to send, I do not pay for them to receive.
The MA Bells didn't use that pricing for phone calls, but cell phone companies did. But it's not the content that they care about. The MA bells try to solve it in a different way and still some cell plans solve it that way too. Do you know what they did? And another issue, TCP has a different mechanism that it makes it different than a standard phone call.
No, we're talking about how to price congestion. MA bells did it by charging more per minute than during low volume times.
They want to be paid in line with what it costs them to maintain and develop the network infrastructure and have decided - like software companies and like state licensing bureaus and DoTs - that a larger share of those payments should come from those whose use is the heaviest, most demanding, and most profitable.
Piping seamless HD Netflix videos into 9 of 10 houses on every block costs money.
Who should pay for that?
It's a simple question to answer.
It's not a problem at all. The costs of installing and maintaining the infrastructure passes to the consumer. It would be irresponsible to install more than is needed and then charge the consumer for that extra that they don't get any benefit from.
It would also be a losing business model.
There's no residential vs commercial traffic in the case of residential ISPs. All traffic whether it's torrents, video streaming, or gaming is hopping outside of the residential ISP private net. Let's see how many 75/75 plans these guys sell if the only thing you can use their networks for is Comcast-to-Comcast, or Verizon-to-Verizon, or Cox-to-Cox email
The only load on their network is from content their customers request. Netflix traffic isn't going to flow through the Comcast network to hit a Verizon stream viewer or vice versa because their entire network is only set up to service leaf nodes.
Why are residential ISPs so incapable of doing something that plenty of mobile providers and other companies are able to do? Why are they so incapable of supporting what they sell, or alternately selling what they can support?
Lemme guess - you're one of those small government free market conservatives...
You might as well say there's no commercial traffic on the highway because it is consumer demand that leads Wal-Mart to put all those semi-trucks on the road.
Anyone might as well say anything if they don't understand how packet switching networks work.
I said no. You understand what No means, it answered your question.
Lots of talk for, "I think that monopolies should exert whatever pressure on the market they feel entitled to."Nope. I'm not required to pay for a person receiving a phone call I am making. They pay to receive, I pay to send, I do not pay for them to receive.
The MA Bells didn't use that pricing for phone calls, but cell phone companies did. But it's not the content that they care about. The MA bells try to solve it in a different way and still some cell plans solve it that way too. Do you know what they did? And another issue, TCP has a different mechanism that it makes it different than a standard phone call.
No, we're talking about how to price congestion. MA bells did it by charging more per minute than during low volume times.
And I would have no problem with this. If we are to have data caps (and I'm not at all convinced there is any economic justification here) they should be based on actual load. Count the bytes only when the load is above say 50% of capacity.
What congestion? Have you forgotten the last net neutrality thread where I posted, to you, proof that the claimed congestion by companies like Comcast was a bald-faced lie?I said no. You understand what No means, it answered your question.
Lots of talk for, "I think that monopolies should exert whatever pressure on the market they feel entitled to."Nope. I'm not required to pay for a person receiving a phone call I am making. They pay to receive, I pay to send, I do not pay for them to receive.
The MA Bells didn't use that pricing for phone calls, but cell phone companies did. But it's not the content that they care about. The MA bells try to solve it in a different way and still some cell plans solve it that way too. Do you know what they did? And another issue, TCP has a different mechanism that it makes it different than a standard phone call.
No, we're talking about how to price congestion. MA bells did it by charging more per minute than during low volume times.
It's interesting, because cable and newspapers have always double dipped with the pricing model. They get some of their revenue from subscribers, and the other avenue from their advertisers. So should advertisers complain about having to pay cable companies to advertise?
It's interesting, because cable and newspapers have always double dipped with the pricing model. They get some of their revenue from subscribers, and the other avenue from their advertisers. So should advertisers complain about having to pay cable companies to advertise?
I'm confused. Are you under the impression that Netflix et al. currently don't have to pay to upload data?
You didn't answer the questions I asked.
Building and maintaining networks that can handle stuff like Netflix and Hulu streaming costs a lot more money than building networks that do not have to cope with such traffic.
So who should pay for that?
It's a simple question to answer.
That doesn't address my point at all.
And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck.
I did answer your question - you just seem unwilling to accept the answer. The ISPs should sell services they can support and any investment is on them. All traffic in a packet switching network is demand driven, there's no warehousing of packets on the Comcast network or peerage considerations since they don't serve as a trunk.
For context: http://techblog.netflix.com/2015/12/per-title-encode-optimization.html
For pricing I checked Comcast at: http://www.xfinity.com/internet-service.html
Which lists 10Mbps as the minimum (priced $49) and they're incentivizing 25Mbps and 75Mbps pricing with contracts at $39.99 and $49 respectively. That's plenty of bandwidth to support uncompressed video from Netflix (or Hulu) - and that's not considering the ability to apply additional compression on the video stream. Colour me unimpressed by the kvetching about load. The top tier is a whopping 2Gbps. Verizon and Cox have similar pricing.
Mind you most of the ISPs operate as monopolies or duopolies - if they're unwilling to invest in their networks they should renegotiate their status, opening markets up to competition, rather than asking for their cake and eating it too.
That doesn't address my point at all.
It did address your point - your analogy is bad and you should feel bad. Anyone who understands how the internet works can see this. Even Ted Stevens said so:
And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck.
Their networks can handle Netflix. The problem was that companies like Comcast were purposefully throttling Netflix for business purposes, not network traffic purposes.A lot of words - still no answer.
When it costs $X to run a network that can't handle Netflix traffic and $X+Y to run a network that can, who should pay the $Y?
Be specific and stop dodging.
That doesn't address my point at all.
It did address your point - your analogy is bad and you should feel bad. Anyone who understands how the internet works can see this. Even Ted Stevens said so:
And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck.
Good thing I never compared the Internet to a 'big truck', then.
I'd hate to have to feel bad about myself.
Their networks can handle Netflix. The problem was that companies like Comcast were purposefully throttling Netflix for business purposes, not network traffic purposes.A lot of words - still no answer.
When it costs $X to run a network that can't handle Netflix traffic and $X+Y to run a network that can, who should pay the $Y?
Be specific and stop dodging.
That doesn't address my point at all.
It did address your point - your analogy is bad and you should feel bad. Anyone who understands how the internet works can see this. Even Ted Stevens said so:
And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck.
Good thing I never compared the Internet to a 'big truck', then.
I'd hate to have to feel bad about myself.