5 ms·

> It has nothing to do with "network neutrality"--a phrase that is vague and hollow enough to mean absolutely nothing. The definition that google gives when s

by davorak 13y ago

> It has nothing to do with "network neutrality"--a phrase that is vague and hollow enough to mean absolutely nothing. The definition that google gives when searching for "define network neutrality" matched my understanding and does not seem vague: "the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites."

mbreese 13y ago
But note, it doesn't say that ISPs have to have the same size pipe to all peers. Which was the problem in this case... Comcast, et al. didn't want to upgrade their Cogent links to handle the required traffic from Netflix. Everyone sending Comcast traffic through Cogent was equally penalized during prime time hours. You can argue it's poor network management, but it is still "neutral".
- davorak 13y ago
  > Comcast, et al. didn't want to upgrade their Cogent links to handle the required traffic from Netflix. Everyone sending Comcast traffic through Cogent was equally penalized during prime time hours. You can argue it's poor network management, but it is still "neutral". That is my understanding. My comment was just pointing out that "net neutrality" is not considered a vague term by a considerable number of people. I do think it is unfortunate that Netflix is incentivized to make this type of deal rather then their ISP.
  - insaneirish 13y ago
    It doesn't matter that it has a definition. The so-called definition just adds to the ambiguity. The Internet is a very complicated thing and getting your packets from A to B is a technical and contractual miracle. What does it mean to treat all packets equally? If I have "equal" connectivity to content sources X and Y, but X sends 10 times the amount of traffic that can fit in its pipe, it's very "neutral" of me to do nothing about it. And then the experience sucks for everyone.
    - davorak 13y ago
      >What does it mean to treat all packets equally? The definition that google gives and I quoted does not not contain that phrase. > If I have "equal" connectivity to content sources X and Y, but X sends 10 times the amount of traffic that can fit in its pipe, it's very "neutral" of me to do nothing about it. And then the experience sucks for everyone. The ISP has the option to charge more per packet until it makes economical sense. The increased revenue would allow the ISP to increase infrastructure and incentivizes heavy users to reduce their use. That is one of at least a few options ISPs have while remaining net neutral.
      - insaneirish 13y ago
        This is what happened! Verizon and Comcast are charging Netflix more!
        davorak 13y ago
        I thought Cogent was netflix ISP. So it does not seem like their ISP is charging them more.

by davorak 13y ago

mbreese 13y ago

But note, it doesn't say that ISPs have to have the same size pipe to all peers. Which was the problem in this case... Comcast, et al. didn't want to upgrade their Cogent links to handle the required traffic from Netflix. Everyone sending Comcast traffic through Cogent was equally penalized during prime time hours. You can argue it's poor network management, but it is still "neutral".

davorak 13y ago
> Comcast, et al. didn't want to upgrade their Cogent links to handle the required traffic from Netflix. Everyone sending Comcast traffic through Cogent was equally penalized during prime time hours. You can argue it's poor network management, but it is still "neutral". That is my understanding. My comment was just pointing out that "net neutrality" is not considered a vague term by a considerable number of people. I do think it is unfortunate that Netflix is incentivized to make this type of deal rather then their ISP.
- insaneirish 13y ago
  It doesn't matter that it has a definition. The so-called definition just adds to the ambiguity. The Internet is a very complicated thing and getting your packets from A to B is a technical and contractual miracle. What does it mean to treat all packets equally? If I have "equal" connectivity to content sources X and Y, but X sends 10 times the amount of traffic that can fit in its pipe, it's very "neutral" of me to do nothing about it. And then the experience sucks for everyone.
  - davorak 13y ago
    >What does it mean to treat all packets equally? The definition that google gives and I quoted does not not contain that phrase. > If I have "equal" connectivity to content sources X and Y, but X sends 10 times the amount of traffic that can fit in its pipe, it's very "neutral" of me to do nothing about it. And then the experience sucks for everyone. The ISP has the option to charge more per packet until it makes economical sense. The increased revenue would allow the ISP to increase infrastructure and incentivizes heavy users to reduce their use. That is one of at least a few options ISPs have while remaining net neutral.
    - insaneirish 13y ago
      This is what happened! Verizon and Comcast are charging Netflix more!
      - davorak 13y ago
        I thought Cogent was netflix ISP. So it does not seem like their ISP is charging them more.