5 ms·

Because all I want is a dumb pipe. I don't pay the water company based on how wide their pipes are (backbone bandwith) or how far I am from their treatment cent

Because all I want is a dumb pipe. I don't pay the water company based on how wide their pipes are (backbone bandwith) or how far I am from their treatment center (latency); I pay based on consumption alone, as it should be. Why do you think Internet access needs to be treated any differently?

hokumguru 8y ago
But you do pay the water company based on how much water you use. Why shouldn't certain providers like, say, Netflix, not have to pay more when they use nearly 40% of the pipe? (https://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-bandwidth-usage-internet-traffic-1201507187/ https://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-bandwidth-usag...).
- calcifer 8y ago
  > But you do pay the water company based on how much water you use. Yes, I do as the consumer of that water. In this analogy Netflix would be the dam operator, so why would a particular dam pay more to the pipe company than another dam?
- blanderman 8y ago
  Because it's the consumer at the endpoint who requests the content and it's their allocated portion of the pipe that's being used.
- 0xfeba 8y ago
  If ISPs want to charge by the byte, that's fine. What they want though, is to charge data coming in, and data going out.
- imgabe 8y ago
  Does Netflix not pay bandwidth charges to their ISP where their services are hosted? AWS, right? Is Amazon giving them free bandwidth? I'd think probably not.
  - Nelson69 8y ago
    What about all the ISPs in between? They don't get an opportunity to charge you and Netflix...
    - monocasa 8y ago
      They do through peering agreements.
- croon 8y ago
  Netflix only uses 40% of the pipe if the ISP consumers request their data. ISPs are already paid by their consumers to provide them their requested data.
  - tenaciousDaniel 8y ago
    Exactly. How hard is this to understand? The cost is already being met by consumers. It's like if a football stadium was located near a tollway, and the tollway decided to start charging the stadium itself during sporting events. That's not a legitimate business transaction, it's a cash grab.
- Rotten194 8y ago
  Do you think Netflix gets internet access for free?? They pay for their bandwidth fair and square like everyone else.
- duxup 8y ago
  Netflix does pay for internet usage doesn't it? So do I. Sounds like it is already paid.
- briffle 8y ago
  This is why I like the electricity metaphor for Internet access. You pay your utility bill every month for electricity (probably a base rate, and a fixed consumption rate). Does your utility then go to the provider (A local green power source) and demand they pay the utility as well, since 60% of the requests in the region are for their power? (users opting into to green power on their bills?)
- pdonis 8y ago
  My ISP is not Netflix's ISP. Why should my ISP be able to charge Netflix for bandwidth when I am already paying them for the same bandwidth as their customer?
pixl97 8y ago
>I don't pay the water company based on how wide the pipe is Eh, this isn't true in most places. You pay a flat rate since you most likely have a 1"-1 1/2" pipe ran to your residence. Even if you cut the pipe off after the meter and let it run full blast you can only burn up a relatively limited amount of water (compared to what the system can carry). If you have a much larger line it is highly likely that your contract has usage conditions.
- ehecatl 8y ago
  True. But the water company should not bill me differently if I choose to water tomatoes, but not chillies.
  - pixl97 8y ago
    Eh, oddly enough, they possibly could. Water usage and restriction laws are weird.
Spivak 8y ago
Because priority in a network is a scarce resource and there are situations where people would like to pay for it -- VOIP, video calling, gaming. If turning on your faucet took an average of twenty minutes before the water showed up you'd probably want a high-cost low-latency spigot in case of a fire.
- Klathmon 8y ago
  The analogy is flawed here. Nobody cares if an ISP wants to offer 2 "packages": 1. High latency, high bandwidth 2. Low latency, low bandwidth Just like the metaphor of a water pipe, an ISP could offer "normal" where the water takes 20 minutes, or "fast" where it takes a second, but you have to pay 10x or have a much lower limit. What NN is all about is preventing the ISP from saying HOW you are using the data. In the "water" analogy it would be like your water company saying you can ONLY use their "fast" water in their proprietary "soup making system", then they slow down all other water if they detect you are using it in any non-compliant pots. I'm more than fine with an ISP that wants to offer a special low-latency VOIP option, but when they slow down all their competitors VOIP services and only allow you to get their VOIP service with low-latency, then it's a problem. Or the all too real possibility of Comcast allowing something like HULU to not apply to the data-caps, while not offering that option to Netflix, Youtube, Amazon Prime Video, or even your own startup or self-hosted option. That's what I want my government protecting me against, that's the kind of thing that should be heavily regulated.
  - Spivak 8y ago
    How do you feel about the middle ground where you pay a fixed price and your bandwidth/latency is determined by the application? VOIP gets low-bandwidth low-latency, web surfing gets the middle ground, and video streaming gets high-latency high-bandwidth with the expectation that over a large enough population that the usage of each type will roughly average out. I know this forum is full of people who want total control of everything but I would bet this would provide a better experience since it doesn't have to be managed by the customer. > Or the all too real possibility of Comcast allowing something like HULU to not apply to the data-caps This doesn't technically fall under NN but I agree it's pretty scummy. I think it's a tough argument to make the ISPs shouldn't be allowed to do this though. If Hulu wants to make a deal with an ISP where they pay for their customer's data usage and pay more to be exclusive I don't see why that should be forbidden. An example outside of ISPs. Spotify used to integrate Musixmatch into their app which would otherwise cost users $12/year. I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that Spotify can't make an exclusive deal or that Musixmatch must allow GPM to integrate with them as well.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
" I pay based on consumption alone, as it should be. Why do you think Internet access needs to be treated any differently?" I didn't. You are saying what I am saying: You pay for 'Quality of Water Service'. What if you need 5x the flow that the water company normally provides? What if you needed, for medical purposes 'unflourinated' water (whereas all of their other customers use flourinated). With water: + If you want more water monthly - you pay for that. + If you want higher water pressure - you pay for that. + If you want different kinds of water (hard, soft) you pay for that. That's 'Water Neutrality'. What you do not pay for is a higher rate because you're a hospital. Or because you are wealthy and the water company knows they can scam you. If you do not allow the water company to charge for 'high pressure' or 'hard / soft' water types - then they cannot justify in the investment and no such services will exist As for networks: + If you want a dumb pipe, you pay for that. + If you want a faster pipe, you pay for that. + If you want more data, you pay for that. + If you want higher service level guarantees - you pay for that. It's like buying AWS, or a new computer, or whatever. What you should not have to pay for is: $X for Netflix data and $Y for HBO data. Or $X for Facebook and $Y for Linked in data. That's raw price discrimination and it's a problem. Internet providers have massive equipment and support costs to support streaming video, so if you want amazing streaming at 4K super high quality, well, they can provide that if you're willing to pay. But - they should charge the same irrespective of content (i.e. HBO, Netflix etc)
- pjc50 8y ago
  > Internet providers have massive equipment and support costs to support streaming video Do they though? Over and above just providing a link with a sufficient bandwidth and contention ratio?
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    "Do they though?" It doesn't matter. Apple can charge you whatever it wants for it's iPhone. You can pay or not. ISP's can charge you whatever they want for whatever QoS. You can pay or not. That's Network Neutrality. What they cannot do under NN, is charge you based on who you are, or based on what you use your service for. So, charging you for Netflix usage, vs HBO usage is totally out of bounds. If they sell you a 'streaming service' with whatever QoS - you should be able to it for whatever on earth you want. My point is: there is usually an underlying cost-based reality to most of these things, and some of the people on this thread are not actually arguing for 'Net Neutrality' - they are arguing for 'ISP's should only be allowed to bill me in a very, specific narrow way, by law, irrespective of what consumer needs are or what their costs are'.
HighPlainsDrftr 8y ago
Water is a tough analogy to use here (electricity too). Water just flows downhill, or is pumped up from a few locations and shared in the grid. You generally can't distinguish the water from its source - certain wells, rivers, lakes, etc. It is all mixed into one source. I have a 3/4" pipe entering the house that I pay for. I can upgrade it to 1" for $50 more a month (and a ton of capex replacing the spur to the service line). I can upgrade it to multiple inches for for $100's more a month as well. My Internet connection is capable of considerable more bandwidth than I'm paying for. Generally speaking, it's just a software setting on my modem. I guess you could sort of compare it to having the water provider bringing in a 6" line to my house and tapering the line down to 3/4". But even then, their isn't a way for them to force me on to a specific water well or source, or directly force pricing based upon what I use the water for. Its really just a tough comparison.

hokumguru 8y ago

But you do pay the water company based on how much water you use. Why shouldn't certain providers like, say, Netflix, not have to pay more when they use nearly 40% of the pipe? (https://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-bandwidth-usage-internet-traffic-1201507187/ https://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-bandwidth-usag...).

calcifer 8y ago
> But you do pay the water company based on how much water you use. Yes, I do as the consumer of that water. In this analogy Netflix would be the dam operator, so why would a particular dam pay more to the pipe company than another dam?
blanderman 8y ago
Because it's the consumer at the endpoint who requests the content and it's their allocated portion of the pipe that's being used.
0xfeba 8y ago
If ISPs want to charge by the byte, that's fine. What they want though, is to charge data coming in, and data going out.
imgabe 8y ago
Does Netflix not pay bandwidth charges to their ISP where their services are hosted? AWS, right? Is Amazon giving them free bandwidth? I'd think probably not.
- Nelson69 8y ago
  What about all the ISPs in between? They don't get an opportunity to charge you and Netflix...
  - monocasa 8y ago
    They do through peering agreements.
croon 8y ago
Netflix only uses 40% of the pipe if the ISP consumers request their data. ISPs are already paid by their consumers to provide them their requested data.
- tenaciousDaniel 8y ago
  Exactly. How hard is this to understand? The cost is already being met by consumers. It's like if a football stadium was located near a tollway, and the tollway decided to start charging the stadium itself during sporting events. That's not a legitimate business transaction, it's a cash grab.
Rotten194 8y ago
Do you think Netflix gets internet access for free?? They pay for their bandwidth fair and square like everyone else.
duxup 8y ago
Netflix does pay for internet usage doesn't it? So do I. Sounds like it is already paid.
briffle 8y ago
This is why I like the electricity metaphor for Internet access. You pay your utility bill every month for electricity (probably a base rate, and a fixed consumption rate). Does your utility then go to the provider (A local green power source) and demand they pay the utility as well, since 60% of the requests in the region are for their power? (users opting into to green power on their bills?)
pdonis 8y ago
My ISP is not Netflix's ISP. Why should my ISP be able to charge Netflix for bandwidth when I am already paying them for the same bandwidth as their customer?

pixl97 8y ago

>I don't pay the water company based on how wide the pipe is Eh, this isn't true in most places. You pay a flat rate since you most likely have a 1"-1 1/2" pipe ran to your residence. Even if you cut the pipe off after the meter and let it run full blast you can only burn up a relatively limited amount of water (compared to what the system can carry). If you have a much larger line it is highly likely that your contract has usage conditions.

ehecatl 8y ago
True. But the water company should not bill me differently if I choose to water tomatoes, but not chillies.
- pixl97 8y ago
  Eh, oddly enough, they possibly could. Water usage and restriction laws are weird.

Spivak 8y ago

Because priority in a network is a scarce resource and there are situations where people would like to pay for it -- VOIP, video calling, gaming. If turning on your faucet took an average of twenty minutes before the water showed up you'd probably want a high-cost low-latency spigot in case of a fire.

Klathmon 8y ago
The analogy is flawed here. Nobody cares if an ISP wants to offer 2 "packages": 1. High latency, high bandwidth 2. Low latency, low bandwidth Just like the metaphor of a water pipe, an ISP could offer "normal" where the water takes 20 minutes, or "fast" where it takes a second, but you have to pay 10x or have a much lower limit. What NN is all about is preventing the ISP from saying HOW you are using the data. In the "water" analogy it would be like your water company saying you can ONLY use their "fast" water in their proprietary "soup making system", then they slow down all other water if they detect you are using it in any non-compliant pots. I'm more than fine with an ISP that wants to offer a special low-latency VOIP option, but when they slow down all their competitors VOIP services and only allow you to get their VOIP service with low-latency, then it's a problem. Or the all too real possibility of Comcast allowing something like HULU to not apply to the data-caps, while not offering that option to Netflix, Youtube, Amazon Prime Video, or even your own startup or self-hosted option. That's what I want my government protecting me against, that's the kind of thing that should be heavily regulated.
- Spivak 8y ago
  How do you feel about the middle ground where you pay a fixed price and your bandwidth/latency is determined by the application? VOIP gets low-bandwidth low-latency, web surfing gets the middle ground, and video streaming gets high-latency high-bandwidth with the expectation that over a large enough population that the usage of each type will roughly average out. I know this forum is full of people who want total control of everything but I would bet this would provide a better experience since it doesn't have to be managed by the customer. > Or the all too real possibility of Comcast allowing something like HULU to not apply to the data-caps This doesn't technically fall under NN but I agree it's pretty scummy. I think it's a tough argument to make the ISPs shouldn't be allowed to do this though. If Hulu wants to make a deal with an ISP where they pay for their customer's data usage and pay more to be exclusive I don't see why that should be forbidden. An example outside of ISPs. Spotify used to integrate Musixmatch into their app which would otherwise cost users $12/year. I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that Spotify can't make an exclusive deal or that Musixmatch must allow GPM to integrate with them as well.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

" I pay based on consumption alone, as it should be. Why do you think Internet access needs to be treated any differently?" I didn't. You are saying what I am saying: You pay for 'Quality of Water Service'. What if you need 5x the flow that the water company normally provides? What if you needed, for medical purposes 'unflourinated' water (whereas all of their other customers use flourinated). With water: + If you want more water monthly - you pay for that. + If you want higher water pressure - you pay for that. + If you want different kinds of water (hard, soft) you pay for that. That's 'Water Neutrality'. What you do not pay for is a higher rate because you're a hospital. Or because you are wealthy and the water company knows they can scam you. If you do not allow the water company to charge for 'high pressure' or 'hard / soft' water types - then they cannot justify in the investment and no such services will exist As for networks: + If you want a dumb pipe, you pay for that. + If you want a faster pipe, you pay for that. + If you want more data, you pay for that. + If you want higher service level guarantees - you pay for that. It's like buying AWS, or a new computer, or whatever. What you should not have to pay for is: $X for Netflix data and $Y for HBO data. Or $X for Facebook and $Y for Linked in data. That's raw price discrimination and it's a problem. Internet providers have massive equipment and support costs to support streaming video, so if you want amazing streaming at 4K super high quality, well, they can provide that if you're willing to pay. But - they should charge the same irrespective of content (i.e. HBO, Netflix etc)

pjc50 8y ago
> Internet providers have massive equipment and support costs to support streaming video Do they though? Over and above just providing a link with a sufficient bandwidth and contention ratio?
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "Do they though?" It doesn't matter. Apple can charge you whatever it wants for it's iPhone. You can pay or not. ISP's can charge you whatever they want for whatever QoS. You can pay or not. That's Network Neutrality. What they cannot do under NN, is charge you based on who you are, or based on what you use your service for. So, charging you for Netflix usage, vs HBO usage is totally out of bounds. If they sell you a 'streaming service' with whatever QoS - you should be able to it for whatever on earth you want. My point is: there is usually an underlying cost-based reality to most of these things, and some of the people on this thread are not actually arguing for 'Net Neutrality' - they are arguing for 'ISP's should only be allowed to bill me in a very, specific narrow way, by law, irrespective of what consumer needs are or what their costs are'.

HighPlainsDrftr 8y ago

Water is a tough analogy to use here (electricity too). Water just flows downhill, or is pumped up from a few locations and shared in the grid. You generally can't distinguish the water from its source - certain wells, rivers, lakes, etc. It is all mixed into one source. I have a 3/4" pipe entering the house that I pay for. I can upgrade it to 1" for $50 more a month (and a ton of capex replacing the spur to the service line). I can upgrade it to multiple inches for for $100's more a month as well. My Internet connection is capable of considerable more bandwidth than I'm paying for. Generally speaking, it's just a software setting on my modem. I guess you could sort of compare it to having the water provider bringing in a 6" line to my house and tapering the line down to 3/4". But even then, their isn't a way for them to force me on to a specific water well or source, or directly force pricing based upon what I use the water for. Its really just a tough comparison.