4 ms·

Why do people confuse QOS with network neutrality? Those are two completely separate concerns. Still baffles me to this day.

pjc50 7y ago
The fear has always been extortion: pay or we'll traffic-shape your application into uselessness.
- ReptileMan 7y ago
  Yeah but my videochat needs low ping, my torrents and netflix - not so much. I am totally fine with having two lanes - fast for sensitive traffic and slow. Pay as much you consume. This can be mandated to be neutral.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    Who gets to control the "sensitive" label and the pricing? How does pricing work in markets where there is only one viable choice of consumer ISP?
    - londons_explore 7y ago
      One could easily imagine lanes controlled by the end user. For example, "You pay $60 per month for a 50Mbit cable connection consisting of 1 Gigabyte of low latency traffic and unlimited regular traffic". Then the user can set certain programs to be "low latency" using an app available from the cable company. If they want more low-latency traffic, they can pay extra. Actual implementation through CGNAT could simply involve having different source port ranges for low latency traffic.
      - m000z0rz 7y ago
        > An app available from the cable company That will be filled with spyware and antipatterns.
      - pjc50 7y ago
        Now the key thing is: does traffic not specially marked as "low latency" get artificial latency imposed on it in order to maintain the value of the low latency offering? You can imagine all sorts of things that would be great, but you have to acknowledge the reality that market forces don't work brilliantly on ISPs in many places.
        Spivak 7y ago
        I feel like this problem only exists in the minds of programmers since in the realm of law you get to take intent into consideration.
        pjc50 7y ago
        What law, though? That implies a consumer-friendly regulatory regime that can be persuaded to keep up with all the different attempts to game the system. The idea behind net neutrality would be only having to have this fight once to assert that all traffic is of equal value. Edit: this comment expresses exactly what I want to say already https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21762679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21762679
    - ReptileMan 7y ago
      Software vendor and end user. Not the ISP You pay 20 euro for 70-100 mbit slow lane and pay couple more for the low latency bandwidth that you need.
- LoSboccacc 7y ago
  isn't that already happened at peering level? Netflix shaping was doing the rounds on the news some years ago.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    Netflix is a very special case. When your service comprises 10% of all Internet traffic, a lot of network management things that are normally irrelevant at the application level start to have shaping effects. A typical website won’t be affected at all by, like, Comcast’s peering policies.

pjc50 7y ago

The fear has always been extortion: pay or we'll traffic-shape your application into uselessness.

ReptileMan 7y ago
Yeah but my videochat needs low ping, my torrents and netflix - not so much. I am totally fine with having two lanes - fast for sensitive traffic and slow. Pay as much you consume. This can be mandated to be neutral.
- pjc50 7y ago
  Who gets to control the "sensitive" label and the pricing? How does pricing work in markets where there is only one viable choice of consumer ISP?
  - londons_explore 7y ago
    One could easily imagine lanes controlled by the end user. For example, "You pay $60 per month for a 50Mbit cable connection consisting of 1 Gigabyte of low latency traffic and unlimited regular traffic". Then the user can set certain programs to be "low latency" using an app available from the cable company. If they want more low-latency traffic, they can pay extra. Actual implementation through CGNAT could simply involve having different source port ranges for low latency traffic.
    - m000z0rz 7y ago
      > An app available from the cable company That will be filled with spyware and antipatterns.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      Now the key thing is: does traffic not specially marked as "low latency" get artificial latency imposed on it in order to maintain the value of the low latency offering? You can imagine all sorts of things that would be great, but you have to acknowledge the reality that market forces don't work brilliantly on ISPs in many places.
      - Spivak 7y ago
        I feel like this problem only exists in the minds of programmers since in the realm of law you get to take intent into consideration.
        pjc50 7y ago
        What law, though? That implies a consumer-friendly regulatory regime that can be persuaded to keep up with all the different attempts to game the system. The idea behind net neutrality would be only having to have this fight once to assert that all traffic is of equal value. Edit: this comment expresses exactly what I want to say already https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21762679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21762679
  - ReptileMan 7y ago
    Software vendor and end user. Not the ISP You pay 20 euro for 70-100 mbit slow lane and pay couple more for the low latency bandwidth that you need.
LoSboccacc 7y ago
isn't that already happened at peering level? Netflix shaping was doing the rounds on the news some years ago.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  Netflix is a very special case. When your service comprises 10% of all Internet traffic, a lot of network management things that are normally irrelevant at the application level start to have shaping effects. A typical website won’t be affected at all by, like, Comcast’s peering policies.