3 ms·

> Net Neutraility, Bandwidth saturation & peering link negotiation is far more complicated than what is being presented by this campaign. Perhaps the complexit

by webXL 12y ago

> Net Neutraility, Bandwidth saturation & peering link negotiation is far more complicated than what is being presented by this campaign. Perhaps the complexity is the problem. I'm fairly tech savvy and when I've never heard a clear explanation of the problem and the solution. There's a very clear problem with A.L.S.: if you get it, you die within a few years. It's not very hard to understand/sympathize with that.

Zikes 12y ago
The clearest explanations for the problem of lack of proper net neutrality are two examples: 1. Slower internet. If companies have to pay twice as much to get a proper connection to their customers, a lot of companies won't be able to. 2. A la carte internet. Pay your ISP $5 more a month for a priority connection to Netflix. Save now with our Social Media Bundle! Only $10 a month for access to Facebook and Twitter!
- webXL 12y ago
  1. Why don't we have this now? 2. Why should ISPs be forced to provide more bandwidth for some companies at the same price? There are already tiers of service at the consumer level. Why not at the content producer level?
  - mhurron 12y ago
    1. Why should a company have to pay an ISP they have no business relationship with. i.e Netflix gets service from Level3, my ISP is Time Warner. Why should Time Warner get money from Netflix? 2. They're not forced to provide more bandwidth to anyone, but they shouldn't be able to restrict bandwidth to an endpoint to shake them down. Again, I pay Time Warner for a 50Mbit connection, why can Time Warner say what I can use it for?
    - webXL 12y ago
      > Again, I pay Time Warner for a 50Mbit connection, why can Time Warner say what I can use it for? At any given moment, there's a fixed amount of bandwidth that can enter and exit TW's network: only so much data between consumers and producers can pass through it. Tiers help you get more guaranteed bandwidth: you're buying some of the pipe. Why shouldn't content producers also have the ability to buy a percentage of that pipe? When you bought more of the pipe, did it slow down someone else's, or did the ISP realize that it could make/compete more by building out its network, i.e. making the pipe bigger? I realize monopolies can charge whatever for whatever level of service, but this notion that all ISPs must be forced to conduct their business like a regulated utility in all circumstances just baffles me. Local governments and public utilities are a big part of the lack of competition, but net neutrality advocates rarely address that fact. http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/ http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-jus...
      - mhurron 12y ago
        If Time Warner is selling more bandwidth than they are able to provide, the correct solution is that they upgrade their infrastructure, not 'here's a 50Mbit connection, you'll pay more than the 20Mbit plan, but you get to use 3Mbit, have a nice day.' > there's a fixed amount of bandwidth This is being used as a bullshit excuse, and people buy it because they can visualize a set of physical tubes with a fixed width. However, isn't it funny that when Netflix paid off Comcast, they suddenly found enough bandwidth to stop throttling Netflix traffic back. I guess they got right out there and dug another trench for another tube.
      - marcosdumay 12y ago
        Did you buy a connection to the Time Warner Network, or did you buy a connection to the Internet? If they can't get external data fast enough for supplying your connection, TW has lied to you, and isn't delivering the service you paid for. Also, interconnection is not in any way analogue to a pipe. It has no reasonable length they have to keep. It's just a matter of joining the 50Mb "pipe" they sold to you with the pipe the other party sold to the site you are accessing.
  - sp332 12y ago
    There are already tiers of service at the "producer" level. Companies can buy more bandwidth for their servers just like "consumers". They can also distribute servers around the globe or even co-locate with ISPs. So, each Comcast user pays for their connection, and Netflix also pays for their bandwidth. But now residential ISPs want to charge Netflix again for delivering their data to customers, even though they're already being paid by both ends.

by webXL 12y ago

Zikes 12y ago

The clearest explanations for the problem of lack of proper net neutrality are two examples: 1. Slower internet. If companies have to pay twice as much to get a proper connection to their customers, a lot of companies won't be able to. 2. A la carte internet. Pay your ISP $5 more a month for a priority connection to Netflix. Save now with our Social Media Bundle! Only $10 a month for access to Facebook and Twitter!

webXL 12y ago
1. Why don't we have this now? 2. Why should ISPs be forced to provide more bandwidth for some companies at the same price? There are already tiers of service at the consumer level. Why not at the content producer level?
- mhurron 12y ago
  1. Why should a company have to pay an ISP they have no business relationship with. i.e Netflix gets service from Level3, my ISP is Time Warner. Why should Time Warner get money from Netflix? 2. They're not forced to provide more bandwidth to anyone, but they shouldn't be able to restrict bandwidth to an endpoint to shake them down. Again, I pay Time Warner for a 50Mbit connection, why can Time Warner say what I can use it for?
  - webXL 12y ago
    > Again, I pay Time Warner for a 50Mbit connection, why can Time Warner say what I can use it for? At any given moment, there's a fixed amount of bandwidth that can enter and exit TW's network: only so much data between consumers and producers can pass through it. Tiers help you get more guaranteed bandwidth: you're buying some of the pipe. Why shouldn't content producers also have the ability to buy a percentage of that pipe? When you bought more of the pipe, did it slow down someone else's, or did the ISP realize that it could make/compete more by building out its network, i.e. making the pipe bigger? I realize monopolies can charge whatever for whatever level of service, but this notion that all ISPs must be forced to conduct their business like a regulated utility in all circumstances just baffles me. Local governments and public utilities are a big part of the lack of competition, but net neutrality advocates rarely address that fact. http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/ http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-jus...
    - mhurron 12y ago
      If Time Warner is selling more bandwidth than they are able to provide, the correct solution is that they upgrade their infrastructure, not 'here's a 50Mbit connection, you'll pay more than the 20Mbit plan, but you get to use 3Mbit, have a nice day.' > there's a fixed amount of bandwidth This is being used as a bullshit excuse, and people buy it because they can visualize a set of physical tubes with a fixed width. However, isn't it funny that when Netflix paid off Comcast, they suddenly found enough bandwidth to stop throttling Netflix traffic back. I guess they got right out there and dug another trench for another tube.
    - marcosdumay 12y ago
      Did you buy a connection to the Time Warner Network, or did you buy a connection to the Internet? If they can't get external data fast enough for supplying your connection, TW has lied to you, and isn't delivering the service you paid for. Also, interconnection is not in any way analogue to a pipe. It has no reasonable length they have to keep. It's just a matter of joining the 50Mb "pipe" they sold to you with the pipe the other party sold to the site you are accessing.
- sp332 12y ago
  There are already tiers of service at the "producer" level. Companies can buy more bandwidth for their servers just like "consumers". They can also distribute servers around the globe or even co-locate with ISPs. So, each Comcast user pays for their connection, and Netflix also pays for their bandwidth. But now residential ISPs want to charge Netflix again for delivering their data to customers, even though they're already being paid by both ends.