4 ms·

The argument would go that if the radio has total capacity x and each user is allocated capacity y, then only x / y users should be allowed to join the service,

The argument would go that if the radio has total capacity x and each user is allocated capacity y, then only x / y users should be allowed to join the service, otherwise it is "over selling". It is a super straight forward model, but obviously much more expensive to provide. I imagine most users would be happy to pay 1/10 of the cost to get a service that might drop to 10% performance in the worst case, as long as it doesn't happen too frequently.

sbr464 8y ago
I agree, definitely. It was an interesting experiment, and the realities of the then current wireless tech were so limiting, it was eye-opening to be on the provider side for once.
- kakarot 8y ago
  Then we shouldn't have done things like spend millions pushing 4G only to bait and switch with 4G LTE once everyone had upgraded. We shouldn't claim certain capabilities that simply aren't there. The worst thing you can do for a bad product is good marketing, and that's exactly what these ISPs are doing.
  - DougBTX 8y ago
    Personally I’ve had a great experience with 4G LTE, but it is going to depend on lots of factors, including the ISP.
    - sbr464 8y ago
      Curious, regarding monthly download caps, has anyone found a solution to using a 4G LTE connection for frequent Netflix consumption? It currently burns through too many gigs to be a cable internet replacement. I was looking for a solution for doing longer term domestic (US) travel.
      - berbec 8y ago
        Some providers, T-Mobile I know, offer to bypass the data cap for certain services. The drop the quality to 480p, but that's not a huge deal on my 5" screen.
      - kakarot 8y ago
        Seconding T-mobile. Pretty much every major media provider is zero-rated and they welcome suggestions for new additions, so it's actually pretty fair as far as zero-rating goes. Just about the only thing you're out of luck on is if you A) use a VPN or B) stream from a private server.
kristoffer 8y ago
If cell providers advertises their services as "Always 100 Mbps guaranteed" that would be a problem, but do they really? Because that is not how wireless communication works. E.g. in LTE the user is scheduled both in frequency and time. The operator has a certain frequency spectrum that gives a certain maximum transmission rate (one user getting all frequencies and time). The scheduling happens based on (amongst other things) signal to noise ratio and priority of each user and their traffic types (voice, data, etc). The goal of the operator is to maximize the overall capacity of the network. This is beneficial for the user as well. I think the problem in the US is the lack of competition. Not net neutrality issues. In places where this works well you just change operator if you are not happy with your current one. This way the provider is free to experiment with how to run their network and everyone benefits.
- resters 8y ago
  This is precisely correct, and well put. Advocates of Net Neutrality are trying to solve what is an antitrust issue, but not using antitrust law to do it. I think it's because most NN advocates have a bias that regulation is a good thing, so of course regulating ISPs will be the right way to make the internet better. However keep in mind that it is regulators who have granted the last mile monopolies to their crony firms and who have helped prevent last mile competition. Notably one thing the FCC has done of late is to remove restrictions on reconfiguring wires on utility poles that benefitted incumbents. Now under the new rules, an ISP who is adding lines to existing utility poles is authorized to move/modify the equipment already on the pole when doing the installation. Previously the rules allowed incumbent firms months to schedule a technician to go out to move the equipment around, which caused many delays for new firms trying to compete. My internet service is pretty bad (XFinity) and Net Neutrality is not the solution, the solution is more ISPs to choose from. I'd much rather have three or four fiber providers to choose from than the (bad) choice between XFinity and AT&T. There are only two choices because of regulators, not in spite of them.
sbr464 8y ago
Also, video absolutely obliterates a wireless radio. Just to keep with the example you mentioned, a wireless radio doesn’t necessarily breakdown into 1/10 per user for 10 users. 2-3 users could flood the connection, the building interference can eat 20-30% off the top, different cell phone models may have stronger radios etc. Then throw in a bunch of 4K ultra hd streams and those contract terms stop making any sense.
pathseeker 8y ago
What you're asking for already exists. They are dedicated business circuits. I get where you're coming from, but there is a reason that the consumer advertisements always say "up to X mbps". If ISPs didn't oversell, consumer Internet would either be unbearably slow or obscenely expensive. A guaranteed 1 gig circuit is on the order of thousands USD month. An oversubscribed consumer fiber provider like Google Fiber is an order of magnitude cheaper because they can oversubscribe based on consumer traffic models that cover 99% of users. Also keep in mind that your model isn't really straightforward at all. The ISP can only provide you guarantees within the lines they control. There could be any number of choke points at IXPs that mean the user can't reach site X at their guaranteed rate. So ISPs never even offer hard guarantees on connections to the wider Internet. The most you will be able to buy is dedicated circuits to their core, an IXP, some branch office, etc. Are you okay with gyms selling more unlimited memberships than the number of machines they have?
- chii 8y ago
  > Are you okay with gyms selling more unlimited memberships than the number of machines they have? Yes, but with a gym, you can switch if you keep seeing overcrowdedness. Not so with an ISP that has a monopoly.
  - zaroth 8y ago
    The monopoly is a “natural” one in that there is only so much spectrum to go around and two companies can’t share it. Oversubscribing is a vastly preferable economic solution in this case. Everyone who can pay a small amount gets access to the network, and most of the time they get the bandwidth they need. Selling a limited number of tickets at a massively increased price, or selling a massive number of tickets each with a dedicated data rate that was almost always idle are both strictly inferior solutions by very wide margins. That throttling is essential to network management is undisputed. There were even carve outs in the old NN refs for it. The problem is if the “throttling” is not just limited video streams in general during peak times, but actually just limiting just certain services’ streams.
  - rayiner 8y ago
EpicEng 8y ago
And when you call up to get your internet connected and they tell you "sorry, we're at capacity. Try back next month"? What then? Would you rather have no connection or a variable speed connection? The latter is a much better solution. You don't seem to appreciate the realities at play here.

sbr464 8y ago

I agree, definitely. It was an interesting experiment, and the realities of the then current wireless tech were so limiting, it was eye-opening to be on the provider side for once.

kakarot 8y ago
Then we shouldn't have done things like spend millions pushing 4G only to bait and switch with 4G LTE once everyone had upgraded. We shouldn't claim certain capabilities that simply aren't there. The worst thing you can do for a bad product is good marketing, and that's exactly what these ISPs are doing.
- DougBTX 8y ago
  Personally I’ve had a great experience with 4G LTE, but it is going to depend on lots of factors, including the ISP.
  - sbr464 8y ago
    Curious, regarding monthly download caps, has anyone found a solution to using a 4G LTE connection for frequent Netflix consumption? It currently burns through too many gigs to be a cable internet replacement. I was looking for a solution for doing longer term domestic (US) travel.
    - berbec 8y ago
      Some providers, T-Mobile I know, offer to bypass the data cap for certain services. The drop the quality to 480p, but that's not a huge deal on my 5" screen.
    - kakarot 8y ago
      Seconding T-mobile. Pretty much every major media provider is zero-rated and they welcome suggestions for new additions, so it's actually pretty fair as far as zero-rating goes. Just about the only thing you're out of luck on is if you A) use a VPN or B) stream from a private server.

kristoffer 8y ago

If cell providers advertises their services as "Always 100 Mbps guaranteed" that would be a problem, but do they really? Because that is not how wireless communication works. E.g. in LTE the user is scheduled both in frequency and time. The operator has a certain frequency spectrum that gives a certain maximum transmission rate (one user getting all frequencies and time). The scheduling happens based on (amongst other things) signal to noise ratio and priority of each user and their traffic types (voice, data, etc). The goal of the operator is to maximize the overall capacity of the network. This is beneficial for the user as well. I think the problem in the US is the lack of competition. Not net neutrality issues. In places where this works well you just change operator if you are not happy with your current one. This way the provider is free to experiment with how to run their network and everyone benefits.

resters 8y ago
This is precisely correct, and well put. Advocates of Net Neutrality are trying to solve what is an antitrust issue, but not using antitrust law to do it. I think it's because most NN advocates have a bias that regulation is a good thing, so of course regulating ISPs will be the right way to make the internet better. However keep in mind that it is regulators who have granted the last mile monopolies to their crony firms and who have helped prevent last mile competition. Notably one thing the FCC has done of late is to remove restrictions on reconfiguring wires on utility poles that benefitted incumbents. Now under the new rules, an ISP who is adding lines to existing utility poles is authorized to move/modify the equipment already on the pole when doing the installation. Previously the rules allowed incumbent firms months to schedule a technician to go out to move the equipment around, which caused many delays for new firms trying to compete. My internet service is pretty bad (XFinity) and Net Neutrality is not the solution, the solution is more ISPs to choose from. I'd much rather have three or four fiber providers to choose from than the (bad) choice between XFinity and AT&T. There are only two choices because of regulators, not in spite of them.

sbr464 8y ago

Also, video absolutely obliterates a wireless radio. Just to keep with the example you mentioned, a wireless radio doesn’t necessarily breakdown into 1/10 per user for 10 users. 2-3 users could flood the connection, the building interference can eat 20-30% off the top, different cell phone models may have stronger radios etc. Then throw in a bunch of 4K ultra hd streams and those contract terms stop making any sense.

pathseeker 8y ago

What you're asking for already exists. They are dedicated business circuits. I get where you're coming from, but there is a reason that the consumer advertisements always say "up to X mbps". If ISPs didn't oversell, consumer Internet would either be unbearably slow or obscenely expensive. A guaranteed 1 gig circuit is on the order of thousands USD month. An oversubscribed consumer fiber provider like Google Fiber is an order of magnitude cheaper because they can oversubscribe based on consumer traffic models that cover 99% of users. Also keep in mind that your model isn't really straightforward at all. The ISP can only provide you guarantees within the lines they control. There could be any number of choke points at IXPs that mean the user can't reach site X at their guaranteed rate. So ISPs never even offer hard guarantees on connections to the wider Internet. The most you will be able to buy is dedicated circuits to their core, an IXP, some branch office, etc. Are you okay with gyms selling more unlimited memberships than the number of machines they have?

chii 8y ago
> Are you okay with gyms selling more unlimited memberships than the number of machines they have? Yes, but with a gym, you can switch if you keep seeing overcrowdedness. Not so with an ISP that has a monopoly.
- zaroth 8y ago
  The monopoly is a “natural” one in that there is only so much spectrum to go around and two companies can’t share it. Oversubscribing is a vastly preferable economic solution in this case. Everyone who can pay a small amount gets access to the network, and most of the time they get the bandwidth they need. Selling a limited number of tickets at a massively increased price, or selling a massive number of tickets each with a dedicated data rate that was almost always idle are both strictly inferior solutions by very wide margins. That throttling is essential to network management is undisputed. There were even carve outs in the old NN refs for it. The problem is if the “throttling” is not just limited video streams in general during peak times, but actually just limiting just certain services’ streams.
- rayiner 8y ago

EpicEng 8y ago

And when you call up to get your internet connected and they tell you "sorry, we're at capacity. Try back next month"? What then? Would you rather have no connection or a variable speed connection? The latter is a much better solution. You don't seem to appreciate the realities at play here.