6 ms·

This is exactly what I've been fearing for a while. As soon as we go soft on the net neutrality issue, ISPs are going to take advantage. Favoring some traffic o

This is exactly what I've been fearing for a while. As soon as we go soft on the net neutrality issue, ISPs are going to take advantage. Favoring some traffic over others because they are part of an ISPs product line is ridiculous and anti-competitive. With practices like these it will become increasingly rare for startups to be able to compete with large companies because customers won't want to spend extra money to use a startup's service. There is a distinct difference between capping a customer's traffic after a certain point (which I don't agree with either) and favoring some traffic over another. This is bad for everyone.

jerf 15y ago
But some traffic is favored over others, by sheer network topology. Internet traffic costs money or peering agreements (which is ultimately just money that happens to cancel out). Traffic from the network you are currently connected to is much, much cheaper for the ISP. I offer the opposite argument, which is that charging you for data sourced within the same network the same as external traffic is what would be the bizarre, anti-consumer behavior. If you want force anything on the ISPs, force them to allow others to home their services directly on their network for some reasonable fee, and then treat it also as uncharged traffic. (I'm not sure it carries the day, so debate away. It should be put out there, though.)
- scottbessler 15y ago
  There is a lot more complication and loophole-ability in forcing ISPs to allow others to home their services than there is in forcing net neutrality in its traditional definition.
- IgorPartola 15y ago
  For what it's worth, often times if you rent a server, you get no charges for communicating with other servers in the same data center.
  - windsurfer 15y ago
    This is slightly different since the company you rent the server from is paying an ISP for internet traffic. If you don't use that bandwidth, the server company isn't charged and they pass the savings to you. With this issue, you're still using the network bandwidth you paid for, it's still going on the internet, but its end point is a server owned by the ISP. You are not accessing a special subnet IP - you're using internet DNS and internet infrustructure to pass this "free" data. I would even bet that if there was damage to the network and there was no direct route to the server, your packets may end up routing outside of the ISPs inrastructure.
- ramy_d 15y ago
  how much money does internet traffic cost? how much cheaper is local traffic from the ISP versus traffic coming from a server 1500km away? how much money does it cost to send internet traffic to varying distances. there's no problem with the argument, but "much, much cheaper" doesn't mean anything in an industry where every byte can be measured and tracked. we're not asking how much does Shaw feel like billing us today, we're asking how much does 1 Mb of data cost them to send over distance.
  - IgorPartola 15y ago
    http://drpeering.net/white-papers/Internet-Transit-Pricing-Historical-And-Projected.php http://drpeering.net/white-papers/Internet-Transit-Pricing-H... So roughly a penny a gigabyte as of 2011.
    - warfangle 15y ago
      So Comcast's 250gb limit costs them $2.50?
      - IgorPartola 15y ago
        I doubt it. This is just the cost of transmitting data from say Netflix to Comcast.
      - corin_ 15y ago
        Don't forget costs such as network infrastructure, staff, etc etc. To take an anology from the pharmaceuticals industy, the second GB costs one cent, the first one is a fair bit more expensive.
    - ramy_d 15y ago
      I would gladly pay per gig at that rate, and then some.
      - JamesPeterson 15y ago
        If you want to pay for the infrastructure and fixed costs too, go right ahead.
- oasisbob 15y ago
  Traffic from the network you are currently connected to is much, much cheaper for the ISP. That's not always true. Eyeball networks are often spectrum-constrained and congested on the last mile. When a DOCSIS network becomes congested, the most common relief is a node-split, and those are very expensive.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- tybris 15y ago
  That's not how the Internet business model works. Receiving data is effectively free. Transit providers charge the sender for the bitrate (high for the web host, low for the web user) and a fixed fee for the connection, which you will have to pay regardless. Peering is paid for per connection and often by the web hosts who want to avoid transit and get better latency to the ISPs customers. In terms of traffic, there is effectively no difference in cost between sending traffic internally or receiving it from an external source. The reason for data caps is that ultimately networks are capacity constrained, but mostly at the last mile, not at the peering and transit links.
  - Locke1689 15y ago
    This is totally false. Inter-AS traffic is often priced using bandwidth in peered connections. In a bandwidth discrepency situation one isp will usually have to pay a lot more for the inter-AS traffic.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - tybris 15y ago
      Right, and that's the sender, which is what I said. Note that the amount of traffic is effectively irrelevant since the connection is supposed to be dedicated. The only reason why the amount of traffic matters is that you need to decide which side pays what.
      - Locke1689 15y ago
        No. Generally the agreement works like this: "we'll set up a peering agreement between us. As long as the traffic differential is within 3%, peering is free. Beyond that point, the exceeding party will pay an excess penalty of x/GB."
IgorPartola 15y ago
> There is a distinct difference between capping a customer's traffic after a certain point (which I don't agree with either) Why do you not agree with it? Is it because you feel that you have no choice in the matter, or because you think it is somehow wrong to charge for some things and not others. Once again, this is the ISP's house, and their rules. They can charge $10 billion per byte. You don't have to pay of course. The big problem I see with this is if they deliberately slow down services like Netflix. Or if by providing their own streaming service, they are exhausting the bandwidth, thus effectively throttling services like Netflix. Otherwise, they have a natural advantage: they are transmitting data from a much closer location. Otherwise, it would be like requiring that your water company deliver you water sourced in the Alps for the same price as from your local reservoir. EDIT: Back to data caps issues: I love them. Because now if there is any question on what I can or cannot do, there is no fuzzy wording about "appropriate network use", etc. I get 100GB a month or I do not. Anything "unlimited" is evil. My big issue is that companies like Verizon, AT&T, etc. only sell plans that are capped very low: 2GB a month is nothing for the way I use data. Give me 200GB a month and I'll pay $30-45/mo for the privilege. And while you are at it, drop the silly minutes notion. Just provide data.
- forensic 15y ago
  Monopolies are bad. The infrastructure was paid for by taxpayers. Your libertarian logic does not apply here.
  - IgorPartola 15y ago
    Oh boy. I am not talking about any political agenda. All I am saying is that (1) it costs the ISP less to transmit data between their servers and your house than between Netflix to their servers to your house and (2) the ISP can charge almost whatever it wants. The only reason why they do not, is because they actually want to make money. Also, it's not quite right: the tax payers did not pay for the infrastructure. The local government did, based on lobbyist pressure from the ISP. While you and are are shooting shit on HN companies like Time Warner Cable do this: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/op-ed-north-carolina-broadband-bill-would-eliminate-level-playing-field.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/op-ed-north-...
juiceandjuice 15y ago
I really do think ISPs should operate based on some sense of duty cycle. Part of the problem with the word "unlimited" is that it's still a holdover from the dial-up days. For example... Guarantee me "unlimited" 5Mbps internet at a 20% duty cycle. That's 300GB a month. The cap is there by convention, but the internet is still "unlimited". Alternatively, give me 8640 "Bandwidth minutes" a month with the option to auto-throttle if I might go over, or disconnect for the month at 8640. Unfortunately, most customers are in fact stupid, and a data cap is often the best way to say "We let you use our internet resources at up to NN% duty cycle per month"
- liedra 15y ago
  Customers are not stupid for not knowing about duty cycle in the slightest. The scheme you described above is completely incomprehensible. Perhaps if you tried to explain it in more engaging and inclusive ways, "most customers" would not be "stupid". Defining "20% duty cycle" and "bandwidth minutes" and "auto-throttle" in non-technical terms would probably be a good start. Until then, stop being patronising and calling people outside of your area of expertise "stupid". It's not going to win you any arguments.
ImperatorLunae 15y ago
This is not bad for everyone. Such blatant abuse of data capping rules is excellent ammunition for net neutrality advocates.
xiaoqmahyy 15y ago
welcometo: http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada,, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time. free shippingcompetitive priceany size availableaccept the paypal ===== http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com ===== jordan shoes $32nike shox $32Christan Audigier bikini $23 Ed Hardy Bikini $23Smful short_t-shirt_woman $15ed hardy short_tank_woman $16Sandal $32christian loubo utin $80 Sunglass $15 COACH_Necklace $27handbag $33AF tank woman $17puma slipper woman $30 ===== http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com ===== ===== http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com ===== ===== http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com ===== ===== http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com ===== ===== http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com ===== ===== http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com =====

jerf 15y ago

But some traffic is favored over others, by sheer network topology. Internet traffic costs money or peering agreements (which is ultimately just money that happens to cancel out). Traffic from the network you are currently connected to is much, much cheaper for the ISP. I offer the opposite argument, which is that charging you for data sourced within the same network the same as external traffic is what would be the bizarre, anti-consumer behavior. If you want force anything on the ISPs, force them to allow others to home their services directly on their network for some reasonable fee, and then treat it also as uncharged traffic. (I'm not sure it carries the day, so debate away. It should be put out there, though.)

scottbessler 15y ago
There is a lot more complication and loophole-ability in forcing ISPs to allow others to home their services than there is in forcing net neutrality in its traditional definition.
IgorPartola 15y ago
For what it's worth, often times if you rent a server, you get no charges for communicating with other servers in the same data center.
- windsurfer 15y ago
  This is slightly different since the company you rent the server from is paying an ISP for internet traffic. If you don't use that bandwidth, the server company isn't charged and they pass the savings to you. With this issue, you're still using the network bandwidth you paid for, it's still going on the internet, but its end point is a server owned by the ISP. You are not accessing a special subnet IP - you're using internet DNS and internet infrustructure to pass this "free" data. I would even bet that if there was damage to the network and there was no direct route to the server, your packets may end up routing outside of the ISPs inrastructure.
ramy_d 15y ago
how much money does internet traffic cost? how much cheaper is local traffic from the ISP versus traffic coming from a server 1500km away? how much money does it cost to send internet traffic to varying distances. there's no problem with the argument, but "much, much cheaper" doesn't mean anything in an industry where every byte can be measured and tracked. we're not asking how much does Shaw feel like billing us today, we're asking how much does 1 Mb of data cost them to send over distance.
- IgorPartola 15y ago
  http://drpeering.net/white-papers/Internet-Transit-Pricing-Historical-And-Projected.php http://drpeering.net/white-papers/Internet-Transit-Pricing-H... So roughly a penny a gigabyte as of 2011.
  - warfangle 15y ago
    So Comcast's 250gb limit costs them $2.50?
    - IgorPartola 15y ago
      I doubt it. This is just the cost of transmitting data from say Netflix to Comcast.
    - corin_ 15y ago
      Don't forget costs such as network infrastructure, staff, etc etc. To take an anology from the pharmaceuticals industy, the second GB costs one cent, the first one is a fair bit more expensive.
  - ramy_d 15y ago
    I would gladly pay per gig at that rate, and then some.
    - JamesPeterson 15y ago
      If you want to pay for the infrastructure and fixed costs too, go right ahead.
oasisbob 15y ago
Traffic from the network you are currently connected to is much, much cheaper for the ISP. That's not always true. Eyeball networks are often spectrum-constrained and congested on the last mile. When a DOCSIS network becomes congested, the most common relief is a node-split, and those are very expensive.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
tybris 15y ago
That's not how the Internet business model works. Receiving data is effectively free. Transit providers charge the sender for the bitrate (high for the web host, low for the web user) and a fixed fee for the connection, which you will have to pay regardless. Peering is paid for per connection and often by the web hosts who want to avoid transit and get better latency to the ISPs customers. In terms of traffic, there is effectively no difference in cost between sending traffic internally or receiving it from an external source. The reason for data caps is that ultimately networks are capacity constrained, but mostly at the last mile, not at the peering and transit links.
- Locke1689 15y ago
  This is totally false. Inter-AS traffic is often priced using bandwidth in peered connections. In a bandwidth discrepency situation one isp will usually have to pay a lot more for the inter-AS traffic.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - tybris 15y ago
    Right, and that's the sender, which is what I said. Note that the amount of traffic is effectively irrelevant since the connection is supposed to be dedicated. The only reason why the amount of traffic matters is that you need to decide which side pays what.
    - Locke1689 15y ago
      No. Generally the agreement works like this: "we'll set up a peering agreement between us. As long as the traffic differential is within 3%, peering is free. Beyond that point, the exceeding party will pay an excess penalty of x/GB."

IgorPartola 15y ago

> There is a distinct difference between capping a customer's traffic after a certain point (which I don't agree with either) Why do you not agree with it? Is it because you feel that you have no choice in the matter, or because you think it is somehow wrong to charge for some things and not others. Once again, this is the ISP's house, and their rules. They can charge $10 billion per byte. You don't have to pay of course. The big problem I see with this is if they deliberately slow down services like Netflix. Or if by providing their own streaming service, they are exhausting the bandwidth, thus effectively throttling services like Netflix. Otherwise, they have a natural advantage: they are transmitting data from a much closer location. Otherwise, it would be like requiring that your water company deliver you water sourced in the Alps for the same price as from your local reservoir. EDIT: Back to data caps issues: I love them. Because now if there is any question on what I can or cannot do, there is no fuzzy wording about "appropriate network use", etc. I get 100GB a month or I do not. Anything "unlimited" is evil. My big issue is that companies like Verizon, AT&T, etc. only sell plans that are capped very low: 2GB a month is nothing for the way I use data. Give me 200GB a month and I'll pay $30-45/mo for the privilege. And while you are at it, drop the silly minutes notion. Just provide data.

forensic 15y ago
Monopolies are bad. The infrastructure was paid for by taxpayers. Your libertarian logic does not apply here.
- IgorPartola 15y ago
  Oh boy. I am not talking about any political agenda. All I am saying is that (1) it costs the ISP less to transmit data between their servers and your house than between Netflix to their servers to your house and (2) the ISP can charge almost whatever it wants. The only reason why they do not, is because they actually want to make money. Also, it's not quite right: the tax payers did not pay for the infrastructure. The local government did, based on lobbyist pressure from the ISP. While you and are are shooting shit on HN companies like Time Warner Cable do this: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/op-ed-north-carolina-broadband-bill-would-eliminate-level-playing-field.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/op-ed-north-...

juiceandjuice 15y ago

I really do think ISPs should operate based on some sense of duty cycle. Part of the problem with the word "unlimited" is that it's still a holdover from the dial-up days. For example... Guarantee me "unlimited" 5Mbps internet at a 20% duty cycle. That's 300GB a month. The cap is there by convention, but the internet is still "unlimited". Alternatively, give me 8640 "Bandwidth minutes" a month with the option to auto-throttle if I might go over, or disconnect for the month at 8640. Unfortunately, most customers are in fact stupid, and a data cap is often the best way to say "We let you use our internet resources at up to NN% duty cycle per month"

liedra 15y ago
Customers are not stupid for not knowing about duty cycle in the slightest. The scheme you described above is completely incomprehensible. Perhaps if you tried to explain it in more engaging and inclusive ways, "most customers" would not be "stupid". Defining "20% duty cycle" and "bandwidth minutes" and "auto-throttle" in non-technical terms would probably be a good start. Until then, stop being patronising and calling people outside of your area of expertise "stupid". It's not going to win you any arguments.

ImperatorLunae 15y ago

This is not bad for everyone. Such blatant abuse of data capping rules is excellent ammunition for net neutrality advocates.

xiaoqmahyy 15y ago

welcometo: http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada,, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time. free shippingcompetitive priceany size availableaccept the paypal ===== http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com ===== jordan shoes $32nike shox $32Christan Audigier bikini $23 Ed Hardy Bikini $23Smful short_t-shirt_woman $15ed hardy short_tank_woman $16Sandal $32christian loubo utin $80 Sunglass $15 COACH_Necklace $27handbag $33AF tank woman $17puma slipper woman $30 ===== http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com ===== ===== http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com ===== ===== http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com ===== ===== http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com ===== ===== http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com ===== ===== http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com =====