4 ms·

> ... using network management to in good-faith give a better experience to everyone ... But that's very much NOT what is going on these days (in the US at lea

by Reelin 7y ago

> ... using network management to in good-faith give a better experience to everyone ... But that's very much NOT what is going on these days (in the US at least). Providers advertise a plan at a certain speed with "unlimited" usage. By any reasonable interpretation, that would mean I could use up to that rate of transfer 24/7. If they can't provide that rate of transfer to everyone who purchases it, then they have no business offering it! And that's not even beginning to touch on any of the issues surrounding net neutrality. I suspect what happens is that due to competitive pressures (ie advertising a larger number to get more customers) they either oversell the network's capacity or they sell at prices that aren't actually profitable for them in the event that people actually use all of what was sold to them. To get back to the original analogy: > Example - your water supplier doesn't make a big deal if you use more water because you have a swimming pool but you ISP does and I find that very weird. In reality, your water supplier generally doesn't oversell their capacity - utilities go to great lengths to be able to meet peak demand. Charging more to, or placing time restrictions on, certain classes of customers who consume large quantities is a key part of that strategy. They also (typically) charge per gallon, which would be equivalent to charging per Gigabyte or whatever, but the rates are very reasonable. This is in addition to charging a low, again reasonable, fixed fee for your connection to their "network". Your water utility also doesn't charge a different rate depending on whether you're using the kitchen vs bathroom sink (net neutrality), and most certainly doesn't attempt to collect and then sell such data to third parties! tl;dr - ISPs in the US often engage in false advertising, resulting in outrage when promises aren't met. If they behaved more like actual utilities, we likely wouldn't have these issues.

Spivak 7y ago
> then they have no business offering it! Okay so the advertising changes to be from "X speed" to "best effort capped at X speed" -- nothing about internet service actually changes -- you're probably still mad. I feel like in a technical forum we should know better that such guarantees are impossible on any shared medium, not just oversubscribed ones. > Charging more to, or placing time restrictions on, certain classes of customers who consume large quantities is a key part of that strategy. You mean like how large ISPs want to throttle and charge video services more? > water utility also doesn't charge a different rate depending on whether you're using the kitchen vs bathroom Your water utility might not but your electric company does in certain areas buy putting special meters on your large appliances. It's typically done for a discount to incentivize running them off-peak but the idea is the same. > doesn't attempt to collect and then sell such data to third parties Careful with that assumption, that's exactly what the smart meters are for that are currently being rolled out.
- Reelin 7y ago
  > such guarantees are impossible on any shared medium Nonsense! My ISP could most certainly sell me a guaranteed minimum speed on their portion of the network at all times of day! In fact, this is precisely how commercial provisioning often works. Obviously they can't control what happens once traffic leaves their network, but that was never the issue and no one is complaining about that (at least that I'm aware). They might also offer higher off peak speeds, or charge per unit of data (like water and electric utilities), offer lower off peak pricing, or whatever. That's largely orthogonal to the current issue of rampant false advertising though. > > Charging more to, or placing time restrictions on, certain classes of customers who consume large quantities is a key part of that strategy. > You mean like how large ISPs want to throttle and charge video services more? No, that would be analogous to the electric utility charging you more if you're using the TV vs the dishwasher. I'm not aware of any that do this, and to head off any counter examples I most definitely do not think that such practices should EVER be legal. Discriminating against customers based on aggregate usage, rate of usage, usage versus time of day, or similar, is completely different than discriminating based on what is done with the service. The first is reasonable, and the second ought to be illegal in all cases as far as I'm concerned. > It's typically done for a discount... Careful with that assumption, that's exactly what the smart meters are for ... And I don't think such smart meter usage should be legal - as with this Maine law, it should NEVER be legal to incentivize data collection and sale via promotional offers.
  - Spivak 7y ago
    > My ISP could most certainly sell me a guaranteed minimum speed on their portion of the network at all times of day! I feel like this is stretching the definition of 'could' a bit, it's not like the residential arm of most ISPs are equipped to just flip a switch and give you a dedicated connection but yes, it is technically possible. It's also ludicrously expensive, a 100M dedicated point-to-point connection in my area costs about $1k/mo. and you have to foot the bill to dig the trenches and get the wire to your building. Should be noted that this doesn't include the costs to access the wider internet. My point still stands though, minimum bandwidth guarantees aren't really possible on shared systems. I'm more than happy to make ISPs change their wording but when it comes to residential internet "X Mbps" has never not meant "Best Effort capped at X Mbps." Regardless, changing how ISPs advertise themselves suddenly won't change the reality of this class of internet. Among this group of people that already know how it works and don't need the pamphlet the advertising doesn't really matter -- it's not like it will suddenly cause ISPs to change how their network is run. > No, that would be analogous to the electric utility charging you more if you're using the TV vs the dishwasher. I feel like the mistake here is making it sound like the person who's consuming the video content is the only party that matters. Presumably you're okay with your water company charging more for industrial use. But here's the thing, the factory is only using all that water because consumers want to buy the products made at the factory. And by charging more to the factory they're essentially charging more to consumers for using water for that specific purpose. A good analogy for video content would be PCB manufacturing (especially since it uses a lot of water). In this case consumers are buying their made-to-order boards on-demand and their purchase directly triggers the water usage required. Yet the PCB manufacturer (and you by proxy) are still charged the industrial rate. The same with video content, just because you as a consumer request the video doesn't make the company delivering it not a different class of customer, a high-volume bulk-sender.

by Reelin 7y ago

Spivak 7y ago

> then they have no business offering it! Okay so the advertising changes to be from "X speed" to "best effort capped at X speed" -- nothing about internet service actually changes -- you're probably still mad. I feel like in a technical forum we should know better that such guarantees are impossible on any shared medium, not just oversubscribed ones. > Charging more to, or placing time restrictions on, certain classes of customers who consume large quantities is a key part of that strategy. You mean like how large ISPs want to throttle and charge video services more? > water utility also doesn't charge a different rate depending on whether you're using the kitchen vs bathroom Your water utility might not but your electric company does in certain areas buy putting special meters on your large appliances. It's typically done for a discount to incentivize running them off-peak but the idea is the same. > doesn't attempt to collect and then sell such data to third parties Careful with that assumption, that's exactly what the smart meters are for that are currently being rolled out.

Reelin 7y ago
> such guarantees are impossible on any shared medium Nonsense! My ISP could most certainly sell me a guaranteed minimum speed on their portion of the network at all times of day! In fact, this is precisely how commercial provisioning often works. Obviously they can't control what happens once traffic leaves their network, but that was never the issue and no one is complaining about that (at least that I'm aware). They might also offer higher off peak speeds, or charge per unit of data (like water and electric utilities), offer lower off peak pricing, or whatever. That's largely orthogonal to the current issue of rampant false advertising though. > > Charging more to, or placing time restrictions on, certain classes of customers who consume large quantities is a key part of that strategy. > You mean like how large ISPs want to throttle and charge video services more? No, that would be analogous to the electric utility charging you more if you're using the TV vs the dishwasher. I'm not aware of any that do this, and to head off any counter examples I most definitely do not think that such practices should EVER be legal. Discriminating against customers based on aggregate usage, rate of usage, usage versus time of day, or similar, is completely different than discriminating based on what is done with the service. The first is reasonable, and the second ought to be illegal in all cases as far as I'm concerned. > It's typically done for a discount... Careful with that assumption, that's exactly what the smart meters are for ... And I don't think such smart meter usage should be legal - as with this Maine law, it should NEVER be legal to incentivize data collection and sale via promotional offers.
- Spivak 7y ago
  > My ISP could most certainly sell me a guaranteed minimum speed on their portion of the network at all times of day! I feel like this is stretching the definition of 'could' a bit, it's not like the residential arm of most ISPs are equipped to just flip a switch and give you a dedicated connection but yes, it is technically possible. It's also ludicrously expensive, a 100M dedicated point-to-point connection in my area costs about $1k/mo. and you have to foot the bill to dig the trenches and get the wire to your building. Should be noted that this doesn't include the costs to access the wider internet. My point still stands though, minimum bandwidth guarantees aren't really possible on shared systems. I'm more than happy to make ISPs change their wording but when it comes to residential internet "X Mbps" has never not meant "Best Effort capped at X Mbps." Regardless, changing how ISPs advertise themselves suddenly won't change the reality of this class of internet. Among this group of people that already know how it works and don't need the pamphlet the advertising doesn't really matter -- it's not like it will suddenly cause ISPs to change how their network is run. > No, that would be analogous to the electric utility charging you more if you're using the TV vs the dishwasher. I feel like the mistake here is making it sound like the person who's consuming the video content is the only party that matters. Presumably you're okay with your water company charging more for industrial use. But here's the thing, the factory is only using all that water because consumers want to buy the products made at the factory. And by charging more to the factory they're essentially charging more to consumers for using water for that specific purpose. A good analogy for video content would be PCB manufacturing (especially since it uses a lot of water). In this case consumers are buying their made-to-order boards on-demand and their purchase directly triggers the water usage required. Yet the PCB manufacturer (and you by proxy) are still charged the industrial rate. The same with video content, just because you as a consumer request the video doesn't make the company delivering it not a different class of customer, a high-volume bulk-sender.