Stephen pre 2015 there were avenues in place where you can appeal to if you feel ISPs are screwing you. I think AT&T at the time tried screw over FaceTime users they all complained and pressured them to back off. There was no need for a massive overhaul in how the internet was managed.
Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 25, 2017, at 4:12 PM, Stephen Partington <[email protected]> wrote: > > Paying for more is fine. But when they can choke down the pipe artificially > just to put you in a position to now need to pay for the premium service. So > now you ha e to pay more just to get access. > >> On Nov 25, 2017 4:03 PM, "Herminio Hernandez Jr." >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> Brian, >> >> This is why allowing ISPs to sell fast lanes and even tiered services would >> not be the end of the world. There a ton of people who do not use streaming >> services that would like to opt in to a service that was cheaper but >> throttled streaming services and there people who would be happy to pay more >> to have better streaming services. In the end more options will benefit >> consumers. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Nov 25, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Brian Cluff <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Here's the real problem with that. I already pay a ton of money so that I >>> can stream video well. Most people could get away with a much slower, and >>> cheaper, Internet pipe if it wasn't for stuff like streaming services. >>> >>> We used at all pay around $15 to $20 per month for an Internet connection >>> 15 years ago and it was fine. Now we all regularly pay around $100 give or >>> take for a faster connection so that our netflix comes over at decent >>> quality.... Ultimately Netflix doesn't cost $8 a month, it cost $108 >>> dollars a month, it just so happens that the connection that gives us >>> Netflix also gives us some other useful services. >>> >>> Now the network providers that are getting the lions share of the money so >>> that we can get these streaming services want a piece of the pie of every >>> service that has managed to be successful on the Internet... From services >>> I might add that make the network providers service worth getting in the >>> first place. The network providers play it like we would all have these >>> expensive connections no matter what and that all the services that make >>> their network connect worth having in the first place is a drain on their >>> service that would be better off without netflix, hulu, youtube, >>> facebook... etc...etc... In my view it's the other way around and they >>> should be hoping and praying that those services don't figure out how to >>> cut them out of the picture... something that I'll bet they figure out how >>> to do if it's suddenly a lot more expensive to be in business because of >>> the current way they do things. >>> >>> For a lot of people, if they weren't getting netflix they could quite >>> likely get away with no Internet connection at all, or one that cost less >>> than $20 a month so that they could check their email. >>> >>> And the answer to who is going to pay for it is, the end user aka you and >>> me. Last I checked content providers and ISPs don't print money, so they >>> have no choice but to pass the costs onto the end user. >>> >>> Brian Cluff >>> >>>> On 11/25/2017 02:45 PM, Eric Oyen 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 >> >> --------------------------------------------------- >> 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
