10 ms·

I really think this is a bad idea. If you're a business and depend on a certain type of traffic (say Skype, or maybe email) why wouldn't you consider the option

I really think this is a bad idea. If you're a business and depend on a certain type of traffic (say Skype, or maybe email) why wouldn't you consider the option of trying to ensure faster and more reliable delivery of some type of data that is absolutely critical? Maybe as a business, you actually want something like Netflix throttled to some extent so that Skype chats that you depend on are 100% rock solid. Why restrict the possibility for new types of services to emerge from actual needs? The real issue with this isn't the lack of network neutrality, but all kinds of local and other types of regulations that make it extremely difficult for all but a few connected big companies to take part in. This is why each region has maybe 1 or 2 really shitty ISPs rather than a decent array of choices.

bitJericho 12y ago
You throttle content (QoS) at the local lan level. If you're paying for service, you should have equal service with all other customers on the same network outside of the lan.
mpnordland 12y ago
You can do that with QoS on your own network. Even entry level routers can do that. The default verizon one, for example, can do it. You don't need to damage the internet for this.
Karunamon 12y ago
What you're describing is QoS. Packet discrimination by kind. Bulk file transfer vs streaming video vs VoIP. Necessary because because the impact if your torrent downloads go a bit slow is your torrent downloads a bit slow. If video or VoIP get congested, the effect is the service becomes unusable. Net Neutrality is about packet discrimination by source and destination. It's not a problem if VoIP gets higher priority over web surfing and arbitrary file downloads. It's a huge problem if the ISP's VoIP service has higher priority than Skype, despite them being identical traffic.
- bitJericho 12y ago
  Except how does one tell the difference between Skype and Voip? You don't without deep level packet inspection. Simple QoS based on port could easily piss off a customer, for example, if they want Skype traffic on port 80. The simplest way to deal with this is to treat all traffic equally but serve the bandwidth that you promise your customers.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    The customer's network should take that responsibility and pay accordingly. [ ] Whatever, normal traffic. [ ] Let this traffic be throttled at will (downloading latest Linux distro) [ ] I need low-latency or else throw it away (VoIP) [ ] I'd like low latency, but still do packets in order (SSH session) [ ] Please give me a channel of X quality for the next 2 hours, or don't provide it to me at all (Netflix)
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      Exactly. It's information that has to be provided in the IP header. A great description is here: http://packetpushers.net/how-does-qos-work/ http://packetpushers.net/how-does-qos-work/ If that information isn't there, then the packets are treated as "best effort" (or at least, they should be in a sane world).
    - wmf 12y ago
      The tricky part is how to handle incoming packets. Since you didn't send them you can't mark them.
    - bitJericho 12y ago
      WTF? It's none of the ISPs business what I use their network for. If they don't like me using all the bandwidth up, they should either charge more or instill data caps.
- danielweber 12y ago
  Net Neutrality is about packet discrimination by source and destination. Net Neutrality seems to be a No True Scotsman where if you ask 10 people on HN what it really means, you get a dozen different answers. There are some kinds of NN I support, and some I don't. I would sign up for the definition in your comment.
danudey 12y ago
> I really think this is a bad idea. If you're a business and depend on a certain type of traffic (say Skype, or maybe email) why wouldn't you consider the option of trying to ensure faster and more reliable delivery of some type of data that is absolutely critical? Because these 'fast lanes' won't be faster lanes; they'll be the performance we have normally, and other traffic will be degraded. The solution to the issue that you propose already exists, and it's called Quality of Service; by having your router aware of your upstream/downstream bandwidth and setting simple rules you can prioritize traffic already. You don't need your ISP to charge you extra to do this. ISPs providing 'fast lanes' would be fine if American broadband issues weren't because of companies with multi-billion-dollar profits not bothering to upgrade their infrastructure to support their customers, or if they hadn't been paid billions by the government to provide universal broadband and then simply not bothered to do so. History has shown that American ISPs operate as monopolies[1], crush any attempt at competition[2], promise improvements and never deliver[3], and generally take advantage of their customers whenever possible, all the while complaining that the problem keeping them from providing good service is the few regulations under which they operate. Now they're claiming that their networks can't handle a large proportion of their users using their connections at once, and it's all Netflix's fault (and not theirs for oversubscribing). So yeah, I think this is a good idea. Force ISPs to deliver the service that people are supposedly paying for, and not pay extra for it. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/01/these-charts-show-comcast-acting-more-and-more-like-a-monopolist/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/01... [2] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/who-wants-competition-big-cable-tries-outlawing-municipal-broadband-in-kansas/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/who-wants-competi... [3] http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/06/att-makes-the-same-promises-every-time-it-buys-a-new-company/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/06/att-makes-the-same-p...
- JoshTriplett 12y ago
  > Because these 'fast lanes' won't be faster lanes; they'll be the performance we have normally, and other traffic will be degraded. That's not necessarily true. Consider the possibility of building out new infrastructure and capacity, and specifically using it for that purpose. No degradation of the existing service.
lotharbot 12y ago
Just an example: I play a 20-year-old video game [0] with the best players in the world. A 1v1 game requires less than 56k (that is, 0.055 megabits) of bandwidth. Yet there are a handful of players who can't play at certain times of day because their 30 megabit broadband connections end up having extreme latency/loss, because everyone on the ISP is streaming Netflix or playing WoW or downloading porn or whatever and the ISP degrades service equally for everyone. I would love to be able to buy internet service with an option for a "fast lane" guarantee for certain types of traffic where latency and loss actually matter. (How that ties in to "net neutrality" is, as danielweber says in a nearby comment, a bit vague since NN seems to have dozens of different definitions.) [0] remember Descent? Here's how to get up and running: http://descentchampions.org/new_player.php http://descentchampions.org/new_player.php

bitJericho 12y ago

You throttle content (QoS) at the local lan level. If you're paying for service, you should have equal service with all other customers on the same network outside of the lan.

mpnordland 12y ago

You can do that with QoS on your own network. Even entry level routers can do that. The default verizon one, for example, can do it. You don't need to damage the internet for this.

Karunamon 12y ago

What you're describing is QoS. Packet discrimination by kind. Bulk file transfer vs streaming video vs VoIP. Necessary because because the impact if your torrent downloads go a bit slow is your torrent downloads a bit slow. If video or VoIP get congested, the effect is the service becomes unusable. Net Neutrality is about packet discrimination by source and destination. It's not a problem if VoIP gets higher priority over web surfing and arbitrary file downloads. It's a huge problem if the ISP's VoIP service has higher priority than Skype, despite them being identical traffic.

bitJericho 12y ago
Except how does one tell the difference between Skype and Voip? You don't without deep level packet inspection. Simple QoS based on port could easily piss off a customer, for example, if they want Skype traffic on port 80. The simplest way to deal with this is to treat all traffic equally but serve the bandwidth that you promise your customers.
- danielweber 12y ago
  The customer's network should take that responsibility and pay accordingly. [ ] Whatever, normal traffic. [ ] Let this traffic be throttled at will (downloading latest Linux distro) [ ] I need low-latency or else throw it away (VoIP) [ ] I'd like low latency, but still do packets in order (SSH session) [ ] Please give me a channel of X quality for the next 2 hours, or don't provide it to me at all (Netflix)
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    Exactly. It's information that has to be provided in the IP header. A great description is here: http://packetpushers.net/how-does-qos-work/ http://packetpushers.net/how-does-qos-work/ If that information isn't there, then the packets are treated as "best effort" (or at least, they should be in a sane world).
  - wmf 12y ago
    The tricky part is how to handle incoming packets. Since you didn't send them you can't mark them.
  - bitJericho 12y ago
    WTF? It's none of the ISPs business what I use their network for. If they don't like me using all the bandwidth up, they should either charge more or instill data caps.
danielweber 12y ago
Net Neutrality is about packet discrimination by source and destination. Net Neutrality seems to be a No True Scotsman where if you ask 10 people on HN what it really means, you get a dozen different answers. There are some kinds of NN I support, and some I don't. I would sign up for the definition in your comment.

danudey 12y ago

> I really think this is a bad idea. If you're a business and depend on a certain type of traffic (say Skype, or maybe email) why wouldn't you consider the option of trying to ensure faster and more reliable delivery of some type of data that is absolutely critical? Because these 'fast lanes' won't be faster lanes; they'll be the performance we have normally, and other traffic will be degraded. The solution to the issue that you propose already exists, and it's called Quality of Service; by having your router aware of your upstream/downstream bandwidth and setting simple rules you can prioritize traffic already. You don't need your ISP to charge you extra to do this. ISPs providing 'fast lanes' would be fine if American broadband issues weren't because of companies with multi-billion-dollar profits not bothering to upgrade their infrastructure to support their customers, or if they hadn't been paid billions by the government to provide universal broadband and then simply not bothered to do so. History has shown that American ISPs operate as monopolies[1], crush any attempt at competition[2], promise improvements and never deliver[3], and generally take advantage of their customers whenever possible, all the while complaining that the problem keeping them from providing good service is the few regulations under which they operate. Now they're claiming that their networks can't handle a large proportion of their users using their connections at once, and it's all Netflix's fault (and not theirs for oversubscribing). So yeah, I think this is a good idea. Force ISPs to deliver the service that people are supposedly paying for, and not pay extra for it. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/01/these-charts-show-comcast-acting-more-and-more-like-a-monopolist/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/01... [2] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/who-wants-competition-big-cable-tries-outlawing-municipal-broadband-in-kansas/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/who-wants-competi... [3] http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/06/att-makes-the-same-promises-every-time-it-buys-a-new-company/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/06/att-makes-the-same-p...

JoshTriplett 12y ago
> Because these 'fast lanes' won't be faster lanes; they'll be the performance we have normally, and other traffic will be degraded. That's not necessarily true. Consider the possibility of building out new infrastructure and capacity, and specifically using it for that purpose. No degradation of the existing service.

lotharbot 12y ago

Just an example: I play a 20-year-old video game [0] with the best players in the world. A 1v1 game requires less than 56k (that is, 0.055 megabits) of bandwidth. Yet there are a handful of players who can't play at certain times of day because their 30 megabit broadband connections end up having extreme latency/loss, because everyone on the ISP is streaming Netflix or playing WoW or downloading porn or whatever and the ISP degrades service equally for everyone. I would love to be able to buy internet service with an option for a "fast lane" guarantee for certain types of traffic where latency and loss actually matter. (How that ties in to "net neutrality" is, as danielweber says in a nearby comment, a bit vague since NN seems to have dozens of different definitions.) [0] remember Descent? Here's how to get up and running: http://descentchampions.org/new_player.php http://descentchampions.org/new_player.php