3 ms·

So, if something can be done and no one notices it can't be a bad thing? "I would've gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids!"

resters 8y ago
Traffic shaping does exactly that. It prioritizes traffic in a way that makes sense for each protocol. So yes, the point is that being aware of the protocols lets the shaping create more perceived bandwidth out of thin air. This is the reality as long as we have "residential quality" broadband, which is more like a finance product arbitraging bandwidth, intended to lower cost and minimize (but not reduce) the impact of congestion. If you want dedicated bandwidth the price is significantly higher. I wish I could afford a dedicated high bandwidth circuit as my residential connection. I can't, but I think that ISPs are better able to choose what QoS makes sense than regulators are.
- jakebasile 8y ago
  The ISPs created this "arbitrage" style of overselling bandwidth, and we shouldn't let their use of loose definitions serve as an excuse to further degrade their products against their marketing claims. My residential broadband from AT&T is sold to me as Gigabit. Do you know how often I've ever gotten what they sold to me? Never. I top out at about 300Mbps, and even that is rare.
  - resters 8y ago
    There are other ways to address that such as false advertising or rules defining what kind of service can be called "gigabit" when sold. I've been trying to find the lowest latency connection possible and was excited to call AT&T and find out they had fiber available. I asked the rep multiple times if it was a 100% fiber circuit, and was told it was. Then on the day of installation, the installer called up and mentioned copper. I said, "Uh, what do you mean copper?". Turns out it was fiber to the pole and copper the rest of the way. The rep simply lied. I would like to see firms that lie to customers in that kind of way removed from the market due to competition. So in my view regulation of ISPs should focus on allowing competition and breaking up the last mile market power. Why can't the municipality own the last mile transmission line and rent it to whichever ISP wins the customer's business?
dragonwriter 8y ago
> So, if something can be done and no one notices it can't be a bad thing? Not only that, the article clearly indicates that people do notice the impacts, they just don't know that the cause is deliberate throttling by their provider. It's like if people frequently complained about loose coins missing from their homes, but it took some legwork to find the crooks who trained cockroaches to steal the coins and deliver them—would you say that the thefts shouldn't be illegal because it wasn't immediately obvious that he losses were thefts?
- stochastic_monk 8y ago
  And it’s just isolated people noticing against a monolithic corporation. It’s hard for any small-time person who isn’t absurdly rich to get them to do anything but waste hours of their time on the phone or internet discussing the issue.

resters 8y ago

Traffic shaping does exactly that. It prioritizes traffic in a way that makes sense for each protocol. So yes, the point is that being aware of the protocols lets the shaping create more perceived bandwidth out of thin air. This is the reality as long as we have "residential quality" broadband, which is more like a finance product arbitraging bandwidth, intended to lower cost and minimize (but not reduce) the impact of congestion. If you want dedicated bandwidth the price is significantly higher. I wish I could afford a dedicated high bandwidth circuit as my residential connection. I can't, but I think that ISPs are better able to choose what QoS makes sense than regulators are.

jakebasile 8y ago
The ISPs created this "arbitrage" style of overselling bandwidth, and we shouldn't let their use of loose definitions serve as an excuse to further degrade their products against their marketing claims. My residential broadband from AT&T is sold to me as Gigabit. Do you know how often I've ever gotten what they sold to me? Never. I top out at about 300Mbps, and even that is rare.
- resters 8y ago
  There are other ways to address that such as false advertising or rules defining what kind of service can be called "gigabit" when sold. I've been trying to find the lowest latency connection possible and was excited to call AT&T and find out they had fiber available. I asked the rep multiple times if it was a 100% fiber circuit, and was told it was. Then on the day of installation, the installer called up and mentioned copper. I said, "Uh, what do you mean copper?". Turns out it was fiber to the pole and copper the rest of the way. The rep simply lied. I would like to see firms that lie to customers in that kind of way removed from the market due to competition. So in my view regulation of ISPs should focus on allowing competition and breaking up the last mile market power. Why can't the municipality own the last mile transmission line and rent it to whichever ISP wins the customer's business?

dragonwriter 8y ago

> So, if something can be done and no one notices it can't be a bad thing? Not only that, the article clearly indicates that people do notice the impacts, they just don't know that the cause is deliberate throttling by their provider. It's like if people frequently complained about loose coins missing from their homes, but it took some legwork to find the crooks who trained cockroaches to steal the coins and deliver them—would you say that the thefts shouldn't be illegal because it wasn't immediately obvious that he losses were thefts?

stochastic_monk 8y ago
And it’s just isolated people noticing against a monolithic corporation. It’s hard for any small-time person who isn’t absurdly rich to get them to do anything but waste hours of their time on the phone or internet discussing the issue.