5 ms·

1-2% using 99% bandwidth? Seems like an exaggeration. I've mostly heard the top 5-10% is using 50% bandwidth. Though i cant find any hard sources for that cla

by Zev 18y ago

1-2% using 99% bandwidth? Seems like an exaggeration. I've mostly heard the top 5-10% is using 50% bandwidth. Though i cant find any hard sources for that claim right now. Dont suppose you have any yourself? Not that that's the main point here. ISP's were overselling their network as "unlimited" meaning, no caps or anything similar. Yet ISP's still continue to sell their networks as unlimited for the most part. They still continue to bump up advertised speeds to a level that the network cant support if people decide to use their internet connection for something other then email. Then when people decided to use their connection; on Youtube or Netflix or to play games, ISP's went and started blocking specific content. How they did it varied per ISP. But they blocked specific content nonetheless. Then there's ISP's that keep track of your browsing and if you type in a bad URL, they redirect you to a search page thats filled with ads. google.co for example goes to http://wwwz.websearch.verizon.net/search?qo=www.google.co&rn=hLKE-Yi_AGOcZR4 http://wwwz.websearch.verizon.net/search?qo=www.google.co&#3... for me with Verizon FIOS. And from what i hear, this is common with other ISP's. Earthlink ( http://blogs.earthlink.net/2006/08/handling_dead_domains_1.php http://blogs.earthlink.net/2006/08/handling_dead_domains_1.p... )and Time Warner ( http://ww23.rr.com/faq.php http://ww23.rr.com/faq.php ) do this as well at the very least. Net Neutrality goes beyond allowing people to use P2P services (not all of which are illegitimate by the way). It's privacy while browsing the web. After all, if an ISP can redirect bad dns searches to their own page, what's to stop them from directing a hit to http://insertYourStartup.com http://insertYourStartup.com to "http://isp.com/tiers/highlyPricedPackage.php http://isp.com/tiers/highlyPricedPackage.php"? And just to reply to one of your points directly. ISP's have a third choice as well. They can rebuild their network. They can upgrade it to fiber. Or DOCSIS3.0. Or whatever other technology out there that I'm not well enough informed about. The only problem with this is that it costs $ to do. At one point, FIOS cost $9000 per customer for Verizon ( http://tech.propeller.com/story/2006/09/29/verizon-fios-cost-per-customer-is-9000-dollars/ http://tech.propeller.com/story/2006/09/29/verizon-fios-cost... ) however the more they lay it out, the cheaper it becomes. Only when it's cheaper then implementing filtering technologies will ISP's move over to this. Verizon did DSL and Telephony before, so their point came earlier then most other ISP's who have cable lines laid out.

gunderson 18y ago
Consider any bandwidth user who doesn't use p2p software: Suppose they download 3 movies per night from iTunes. On my connection movies take about 10 minutes each to download. That's 30 minutes of 100% capacity out of each 24 hour day. Add in a fraction more for email, IM, web surfing, etc. Now compare this to a P2P user who utilizes 100% of upstram and 100% of downstream bandwidth capacity 24/7. It is a massive, massive difference. You can organize the "typical" vs "p2p" users a variety of ways, but even the most intense consumer of internet video barely scratches the surface. ISPs are simply in the business of repackaging bandwidth. They buy bandwidth in bulk (which is typically symmetric for upstream and downstream, and they repackage it as residential bandwidth having much more downstream bandwith and just enough upstream to not inhibit downstream traffic. They also buy bandwidth that requires super-expensive dedicated hardware and repackage it so that a $50 cable modem can provide a "reliable enough" connection in a consumer's home. The reason bandwidth costs about $60/month for a 16 megabit connection (the price I pay currently) is because there are a lot of assumptions made about what constitutes 'typical' residential use. Part of the profit model of an ISP comes from bandwidth speculation. Just as a commodity speculator may buy pork belly futures from a farmer in expectation of future actual hogs, ISPs buy large amounts of bandwidth from major backbone providers with the expectation of being able to resell it as residential bandwith. The assumption on which all of this is based is a typical residential user's actual usage pattern. ISPs have found that residential users prefer high peak download speed over anything else, so they package and price accordingly. All that would happen if P2P use increases is that ISPs would be forced to increase bandwidth prices on everyone in order to remain profitable. So in effect, net neutrality will force everyone who doesn't use their residential connection in an atypical way to subsidize those who do. You are correct that an ISP could redirect all DNS bounces or worse, but it is unlikely that such things would get out of control due to competition from other firms. If there is insufficient competition, that is an antitrust issue, it has nothing to do with "net neutrality". Net neutrality is simply one interest group trying to get the government to meddle with the pricing scheme that has been voluntarily created by one firm and is preferred and accepted by the vast majority of consumers.
- wmf 18y ago
  Charging per byte is neutral and it solves your problem, so just switch to Time Warner and be happy. But I agree that there seem to be a lot of warez kiddies who are riding the net neutrality bandwagon as long as they think it will benefit them.

by Zev 18y ago

gunderson 18y ago

Consider any bandwidth user who doesn't use p2p software: Suppose they download 3 movies per night from iTunes. On my connection movies take about 10 minutes each to download. That's 30 minutes of 100% capacity out of each 24 hour day. Add in a fraction more for email, IM, web surfing, etc. Now compare this to a P2P user who utilizes 100% of upstram and 100% of downstream bandwidth capacity 24/7. It is a massive, massive difference. You can organize the "typical" vs "p2p" users a variety of ways, but even the most intense consumer of internet video barely scratches the surface. ISPs are simply in the business of repackaging bandwidth. They buy bandwidth in bulk (which is typically symmetric for upstream and downstream, and they repackage it as residential bandwidth having much more downstream bandwith and just enough upstream to not inhibit downstream traffic. They also buy bandwidth that requires super-expensive dedicated hardware and repackage it so that a $50 cable modem can provide a "reliable enough" connection in a consumer's home. The reason bandwidth costs about $60/month for a 16 megabit connection (the price I pay currently) is because there are a lot of assumptions made about what constitutes 'typical' residential use. Part of the profit model of an ISP comes from bandwidth speculation. Just as a commodity speculator may buy pork belly futures from a farmer in expectation of future actual hogs, ISPs buy large amounts of bandwidth from major backbone providers with the expectation of being able to resell it as residential bandwith. The assumption on which all of this is based is a typical residential user's actual usage pattern. ISPs have found that residential users prefer high peak download speed over anything else, so they package and price accordingly. All that would happen if P2P use increases is that ISPs would be forced to increase bandwidth prices on everyone in order to remain profitable. So in effect, net neutrality will force everyone who doesn't use their residential connection in an atypical way to subsidize those who do. You are correct that an ISP could redirect all DNS bounces or worse, but it is unlikely that such things would get out of control due to competition from other firms. If there is insufficient competition, that is an antitrust issue, it has nothing to do with "net neutrality". Net neutrality is simply one interest group trying to get the government to meddle with the pricing scheme that has been voluntarily created by one firm and is preferred and accepted by the vast majority of consumers.

wmf 18y ago
Charging per byte is neutral and it solves your problem, so just switch to Time Warner and be happy. But I agree that there seem to be a lot of warez kiddies who are riding the net neutrality bandwagon as long as they think it will benefit them.