3 ms·

I thought net neutrality was about ISPs trying to get netflix, facebook etc to pay them extra not to throttle. The only throttling I've heard of here in the UK

by pipes 3y ago

I thought net neutrality was about ISPs trying to get netflix, facebook etc to pay them extra not to throttle. The only throttling I've heard of here in the UK (which has lots of providers and competition) is on torrenting. Are there examples of what you are talking about with zoom etc? Because as far as I can reason: if an isp throttled something like that in a high competition market, they'd lose their customers. And if it was a low user / start up phase app it wouldn't provide any competitive advantage for an isp to throttle it.

braiamp 3y ago
It is multiple things based on a simple concept: no traffic should be discriminated based on source, destination or type. That means that netflix ones and zeros are treated the same as facebook, same as your web page filled with cat pics, same as torrents.
- digestivetires 3y ago
  Can there be technical things why cerain services get lower level service? I’ve read that ISP buys various links to to other networks at various prices. So maybe something like: if facebookBar server is on pricier linkFoo and for that reason ISP buys cheaper version of linkFoo effectively downgrading facebookBar service (along with everything on linkFoo)? If such scenario is realistic, maybe it could be due to valid financial stuff, not due to anticompetetive behaviour. (Just saying, some technically valid scenarios should be taken into account)
vineyardmike 3y ago
Getting a high-traffic service to pay extra or degrading other services are basically the same thing. Because the obvious question is “what happens if they don’t pay”? The obvious answer is throttling. > And if it was a low user / start up phase app it wouldn't provide any competitive advantage for an isp to throttle it. What we’ve seen in developing nations is internet that’s subsidized but only for certain companies (eg free Facebook, paid everything else) and people just use Facebook and have 0 access to the outside internet. There are examples in the US at least, albeit less severe. It was (is?) common for cell phone companies to offer unlimited data cellphone plans, but they throttle video streaming to a lower resolution. Then offer “unmetered streaming of Netflix” (pick your VOD provider) while, again, degrading the video stream of other companies. I’m pro-net neutrality but also I question if subsidized internet would actually be bad. If you can take a heavily metered or poor service, and subsidize it, then that could be the tool that helps bring internet to more people at less cost to those users. Advertisers would basically be subsidizing internet through these giants. The catch would be to find rules that don’t throttle competition which I don’t know if that’s possible.
- Too 3y ago
  Taken straight out the mafia for dummies handbook. "It would be a shame if something were to happen to the bandwidth of your service in our network".
KaiserPro 3y ago
> I thought net neutrality was about ISPs trying to get netflix, facebook etc to pay them extra not to throttle. It was mostly. Basically in the USA it costs money to peer with people, and even more money to put edge caches inside the ISP's network (because that means the ISP can't charge for peering.) This pissed of a bunch of rich web firms, so they poured money into pro net neutrality publications. (also a lot of anti copyright stuff as well, so they didn't have to pay content creators, but thats a different topic) In the UK, peerings is much much cheaper because of LINX and other peering exchanges. moreover, having an edge cache inside your network saves you cash as you don't need to spend as much arranging upstream peering. (It might save money on transfer between last mile and the core network, but I'm hazy on the costs there.)

by pipes 3y ago

braiamp 3y ago

It is multiple things based on a simple concept: no traffic should be discriminated based on source, destination or type. That means that netflix ones and zeros are treated the same as facebook, same as your web page filled with cat pics, same as torrents.

digestivetires 3y ago
Can there be technical things why cerain services get lower level service? I’ve read that ISP buys various links to to other networks at various prices. So maybe something like: if facebookBar server is on pricier linkFoo and for that reason ISP buys cheaper version of linkFoo effectively downgrading facebookBar service (along with everything on linkFoo)? If such scenario is realistic, maybe it could be due to valid financial stuff, not due to anticompetetive behaviour. (Just saying, some technically valid scenarios should be taken into account)

vineyardmike 3y ago

Getting a high-traffic service to pay extra or degrading other services are basically the same thing. Because the obvious question is “what happens if they don’t pay”? The obvious answer is throttling. > And if it was a low user / start up phase app it wouldn't provide any competitive advantage for an isp to throttle it. What we’ve seen in developing nations is internet that’s subsidized but only for certain companies (eg free Facebook, paid everything else) and people just use Facebook and have 0 access to the outside internet. There are examples in the US at least, albeit less severe. It was (is?) common for cell phone companies to offer unlimited data cellphone plans, but they throttle video streaming to a lower resolution. Then offer “unmetered streaming of Netflix” (pick your VOD provider) while, again, degrading the video stream of other companies. I’m pro-net neutrality but also I question if subsidized internet would actually be bad. If you can take a heavily metered or poor service, and subsidize it, then that could be the tool that helps bring internet to more people at less cost to those users. Advertisers would basically be subsidizing internet through these giants. The catch would be to find rules that don’t throttle competition which I don’t know if that’s possible.

Too 3y ago
Taken straight out the mafia for dummies handbook. "It would be a shame if something were to happen to the bandwidth of your service in our network".

KaiserPro 3y ago

> I thought net neutrality was about ISPs trying to get netflix, facebook etc to pay them extra not to throttle. It was mostly. Basically in the USA it costs money to peer with people, and even more money to put edge caches inside the ISP's network (because that means the ISP can't charge for peering.) This pissed of a bunch of rich web firms, so they poured money into pro net neutrality publications. (also a lot of anti copyright stuff as well, so they didn't have to pay content creators, but thats a different topic) In the UK, peerings is much much cheaper because of LINX and other peering exchanges. moreover, having an edge cache inside your network saves you cash as you don't need to spend as much arranging upstream peering. (It might save money on transfer between last mile and the core network, but I'm hazy on the costs there.)