Eric, This seems to be a reasonable alternative than what is being proposed by Net Neutrality. Saying to ISPs do not block competing content is more realistic than do not throttle.
Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 25, 2017, at 2:45 PM, Eric Oyen <[email protected]> wrote: > > well, considering that the top multinational multimedia cartels own 90% of > the news information outlets these days, that situation is already happening. > what we need is a specified statement like this: > all internet services providers are required to allow competing content to > cross to the end user without censorship (that is, they cannot block it). > However, they might be allowed to charge a "reasonable fee" to allow it > through. > > now, the question becomes, who bears the cost of that fee? the content > provider, the ISP or the end user? and yes, double dipping would definitely > not be allowed. > > now, the old tape cassette fee model worked good for years. the content > providers got a small percentage on each cassette sold and users got to tape > their favorite songs. why not the same thing here: charge a small percentage > (like 1%) to the end user on a monthly basis to be paid into a general fund > for all content providers? that 1% is small considering individual users, but > adds up fast when you consider the number of customers each ISP/broadband > provider has. in my case, that would be about 80 cents on my cable bill. > doesn't seem like a lot, doesn't it? > > -eric > from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Think tank operations Dept. > >> On Nov 25, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Michael Butash wrote: >> >> Most network devices these days, including wireless, firewalls, as well as >> you standard routers and switches tend to do layer 4 and up application >> inspection, primarily for creating policies like "limit youtube|netflix to >> 1mbps", "block peer to peer traffic", and "limit google to safe search only" >> that muck with your content when at work, school, anywhere you have an >> network admin like Herminio or I trying to keep users from doing things to >> break the network, or at least them all at once doing so. >> >> Early on, Netflix and Youtube grew to be behemoth network hogs for >> providers, so rather than let storming elephants trample the village, they >> would "queue" that traffic so it wouldn't overrun more important things, >> like normal web browsing and more perceptible use cases (still likely do). >> As Stephen said, they eventually got smarter, or Netflix did, to peer >> directly with the mega providers, and put local content distribution nodes >> directly into them on 100gb switches so they didn't have to slaughter your >> traffic (and take the bad press eventually in being the internet cop ala >> comcast). >> >> Is this really what the net neutrality debate is about anymore? No, >> politicians don't care about internet speeds, it's really about media >> consolidation occurring that you will be pretty much left with att, comcast, >> and news corp for all television, internet, phone, and news in general. >> What could go wrong, other than enabling maniacal billionaires to buy their >> way into the white house. >> >> -mb >> >> >>> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Herminio Hernandez Jr. >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> They are very related Network QoS exists because there are limits in how >>> much networking gear transmits packets and frames. There is a lot more to >>> it than just writing the policy. There is a cost to engineer that out. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Nov 24, 2017, at 12:59 PM, Stephen Partington <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> It is not that simple in my mind. Network QoS is very different then the >>>> possibility of the customers pay extra for additional services. >>>> >>>> Besides Netflix has cache devices that can and are frequently in local is >>>> Datacenters to alleviate latency and Bw issues. >>>> >>>> And given the current fcc chairs attitude I am really skeptical. >>>> >>>>> On Nov 24, 2017 12:31 PM, "Herminio Hernandez, Jr." >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> I will start with some thoughts on why I find the NN debate troubling. >>>>> First there is a technical misunderstanding. NN is built on the idea that >>>>> ISPs should treat all traffic equally. This concept is simply >>>>> unrealistic. Bandwidth is a limited resource there is only so much data >>>>> that a Ethernet port can transmit and receive. Also things like MTU size, >>>>> latency, jitter all impact the reliable transmission of data which bring >>>>> me to my other point. Not all traffic is the same. There are night and >>>>> day differences between TCP and UDP traffic. For example UDP (which is >>>>> what most voice and video is) is faster than TCP. The drawback to this is >>>>> that UDP does not have the recovery features that TCP has in case of >>>>> packet loss (ie sequence number and acknowledgment packets). There UDP >>>>> applications are more prone to suffer when latency is high or links get >>>>> saturated. To overcome this network engineer implement prioritization and >>>>> traffic shaping to ensure these services are not impacted. >>>>> >>>>> As more content is consumed such as 4K video on the internet, the need >>>>> for traffic shaping will only increase. Netflix already has the ability >>>>> to push 100Gbps from their servers. That is a ton of data that needs to >>>>> be prioritized by ISPs. This is not free there are serious costs involved >>>>> in man hours and infrastructure. Someone needs to bear that cost. This is >>>>> why I am not opposed to fast lanes. If Netflix is going to have ISPs >>>>> ensure all of the massive amounts to data are push is delivered >>>>> efficiently, then the ISPs should be free to charge a premium for this >>>>> service. Netflix does not want to bear this cost, hense their support for >>>>> Net Neutrality. They want the ISPs to bear the cost, but then result of >>>>> that is we bear the cost via data caps. >>>>> >>>>> When you strip away all the slogans it all comes down to money and >>>>> control. Data will be traffic shaped it is just who decides how unelected >>>>> government bureaucrats pushing some public policy or market forces. >>>>> >>>>> Something else to consider a lot not all but a lot of the very same >>>>> people who cry that the end of Net Neutrality will be end of free speech >>>>> (no more free and open internet) have no issue saying Twiiter, Facebook, >>>>> and Google (since they are 'private companies') have the right >>>>> demonetize, obscure, or even ban individuals who express ideas that other >>>>> deem "offensive". How is that promoting a "Free and Open Internet"? >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Eric Oyen <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> well, as someone else suggested, a new thread. >>>>>> >>>>>> so, shall we start the discussion? >>>>>> >>>>>> ok, as mentioned, bandwidth is a limited resource. the question is How >>>>>> limited? >>>>>> >>>>>> Then there is the question: can an ISP curtail certain types of traffic >>>>>> (null route it, delay it, other bandwidth shaping routines)? How far can >>>>>> they go? >>>>>> >>>>>> What really is net neutrality? >>>>>> >>>>>> lastly, what part does the FCC play, or should they? >>>>>> >>>>>> so, any thoughts on the above questions? >>>>>> >>>>>> -eric >>>>>> from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, you got questions, we >>>>>> got answers Dept. >>>>>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected] >>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>>>>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected] >>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>>>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected] >>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------- >>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected] >>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >> >> --------------------------------------------------- >> PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected] >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
--------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
