4 ms·

Did Tim envision internet bandwidth consumed by Netflix? Is the current mix of content we consume something he approves of? Instead of staking out absolutist p

Did Tim envision internet bandwidth consumed by Netflix? Is the current mix of content we consume something he approves of? Instead of staking out absolutist positions it would be helpful to come up practical solutions now. Some form of fast lanes is inevitable over time and just maybe it could improve the situation of people like me who would likely remain on the "normal speed" lanes.

themartorana 12y ago
I can't tell if this is defeatist or just insane. Who cares if he envisioned Netflix in the past, his comments are in the light of the present. So yeah, I'm sure bandwidth needs of today - and he's pretty smart, so I'm gonna go with tomorrow - are probably considered in his statement. But we're not talking about consumption, we're talking about the speed at which I can consume. If you pay for 1G/m and I pay for 1TB/m at 100mbps, I expect all content, no matter it's nature, be delivered at the same maximum capacity reaching 100mbps to you and me equally, no matter the content. I already pay more to be able to stream a mass of content but we still should enjoy equality of delivery of the content we choose to engage in, without a middle party deciding which of that is more important for us.
- zwieback 12y ago
  Exactly, thanks for making my argument more convincingly. I would love to have the people who are willing to pay for 1TB/m subsidize my slower tier. Forcing everyone to have a transport layer that's independent of the content is not a great idea. If you were going to design a new network today you would never go down that path.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    Forcing everyone to have a transport layer that's independent of the content is not a great idea. If you were going to design a new network today you would never go down that path. Actually, yes I would (not the OP). Packets go in, packets come out.
porqupine 12y ago
The point is that your ISP already sells you data allowance and bandwidth, that is they are looking to charge Netflix and other companies for something the consumer has already effectively paid for -
- zwieback 12y ago
  I understand that. My hope is that we might be able to "unbundle" and get some benefit at the lower end. I don't want to subsidize the Netflix streamers by being forced into a neutral model. I'm looking for a cheaper slow lane.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    What's with this "I don't want to help anybody but myself" attitude I see come up whenever there's a discussion of taxes, welfare, or bandwidth pricing? If you want a cheaper slow lane, it sounds like you are expecting the Netflix users to subsidize you.
    - IBM 12y ago
      Netflix users wouldn't be subsidizing him, they'd be paying more for the higher data they use.
      - nitrogen 12y ago
        This other comment suggests otherwise: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8344824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8344824 "I would love to have the people who are willing to pay for 1TB/m subsidize my slower tier."
  - porqupine 12y ago
    The Neutral model isn't so much about the terms the ISP is offering you as to how they fulfill those terms. Let's say a consumer pays for a 20MB/S connection with unlimited bandwidth, now the ISP is going to throttle all streaming content on there to say 2MB/S - except (for example for Netflix which has an agreement with the ISP) - so as a consumer you might want to use Amazon Prime or Hulu - but nope -- all of those services are throttled, only Netflix is going to get the full 20MB/S. Now of course the big companies will pay not to be throttled, but where does this leave, small companies? What if next time your ISP throttle wikileaks, or some indie internet comic, or any other websites which it finds politically disagreeable?
sergiotapia 12y ago
I pay X/s, I want X/s. I don't understand how in Bolivia I can pay that, and have exactly that with minimal fuss. Meanwhile I hear absolutely insane stuff coming from my friends ISPs in the US. I pay $90/month for a 2MB connection, and get precisely that, either for torrents, Netflix, PS4 online or plain old http downloads. I can even call tech support here and have a live-person helping me figure out why my internet is not working immediately. No robots, no telephone-software redirects. You guys don't have that level of quality because Comcast is bribing all of your appointed officials. There is no competition! My father in Boston just got internet and had to sign up with Comcast because there was literally no other choice where he lived. He paid for the service, and guess what 5 hours after the installation technician left the internet didn't work. He called them up, which was a 3 hour hold, and they wanted to charge him $80 for a technician visit. $80 FOR A TECHNICIAN VISIT, they didn't even want to check his internet remotely, like they do here in Bolivia. It's all nickle and diming, and you can't do shit about it. The FCC is working for Comcast, not for the people. Don't you get that?
- jeremyt 12y ago
  Well, I suspect one of the reasons why they can do that is because they're charging you $90 per month for a 2 Mb connection. I pay $27 per month here in the state for a 25/5 connection that routinely gets about 8/3.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  >> I don't understand how in Bolivia I can pay that, and have exactly that with minimal fuss. Exactly! Anyone who thinks fast lanes are necessary must not have looked at how the internet works in the rest of the world where we don't have such huge problems with net neutrality.
- whoopdedo 12y ago
  > I pay X/s, I want X/s. If you don't have a SLA, you're not paying for X/s. The cheap consumer plans only advertise the speed as a potential maximum with no guarantee. Moreover, they explicitly state that overuse will result in slower speeds. So if you want X/s, then you'll need a stricter contract, and will have to pay a lot more than what you're doing now. Or, the ISP can request that upstream services subsidize the bandwidth for downstream customers and that way you won't have to pay more.

themartorana 12y ago

I can't tell if this is defeatist or just insane. Who cares if he envisioned Netflix in the past, his comments are in the light of the present. So yeah, I'm sure bandwidth needs of today - and he's pretty smart, so I'm gonna go with tomorrow - are probably considered in his statement. But we're not talking about consumption, we're talking about the speed at which I can consume. If you pay for 1G/m and I pay for 1TB/m at 100mbps, I expect all content, no matter it's nature, be delivered at the same maximum capacity reaching 100mbps to you and me equally, no matter the content. I already pay more to be able to stream a mass of content but we still should enjoy equality of delivery of the content we choose to engage in, without a middle party deciding which of that is more important for us.

zwieback 12y ago
Exactly, thanks for making my argument more convincingly. I would love to have the people who are willing to pay for 1TB/m subsidize my slower tier. Forcing everyone to have a transport layer that's independent of the content is not a great idea. If you were going to design a new network today you would never go down that path.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  Forcing everyone to have a transport layer that's independent of the content is not a great idea. If you were going to design a new network today you would never go down that path. Actually, yes I would (not the OP). Packets go in, packets come out.

porqupine 12y ago

The point is that your ISP already sells you data allowance and bandwidth, that is they are looking to charge Netflix and other companies for something the consumer has already effectively paid for -

zwieback 12y ago
I understand that. My hope is that we might be able to "unbundle" and get some benefit at the lower end. I don't want to subsidize the Netflix streamers by being forced into a neutral model. I'm looking for a cheaper slow lane.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  What's with this "I don't want to help anybody but myself" attitude I see come up whenever there's a discussion of taxes, welfare, or bandwidth pricing? If you want a cheaper slow lane, it sounds like you are expecting the Netflix users to subsidize you.
  - IBM 12y ago
    Netflix users wouldn't be subsidizing him, they'd be paying more for the higher data they use.
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      This other comment suggests otherwise: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8344824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8344824 "I would love to have the people who are willing to pay for 1TB/m subsidize my slower tier."
- porqupine 12y ago
  The Neutral model isn't so much about the terms the ISP is offering you as to how they fulfill those terms. Let's say a consumer pays for a 20MB/S connection with unlimited bandwidth, now the ISP is going to throttle all streaming content on there to say 2MB/S - except (for example for Netflix which has an agreement with the ISP) - so as a consumer you might want to use Amazon Prime or Hulu - but nope -- all of those services are throttled, only Netflix is going to get the full 20MB/S. Now of course the big companies will pay not to be throttled, but where does this leave, small companies? What if next time your ISP throttle wikileaks, or some indie internet comic, or any other websites which it finds politically disagreeable?

sergiotapia 12y ago

I pay X/s, I want X/s. I don't understand how in Bolivia I can pay that, and have exactly that with minimal fuss. Meanwhile I hear absolutely insane stuff coming from my friends ISPs in the US. I pay $90/month for a 2MB connection, and get precisely that, either for torrents, Netflix, PS4 online or plain old http downloads. I can even call tech support here and have a live-person helping me figure out why my internet is not working immediately. No robots, no telephone-software redirects. You guys don't have that level of quality because Comcast is bribing all of your appointed officials. There is no competition! My father in Boston just got internet and had to sign up with Comcast because there was literally no other choice where he lived. He paid for the service, and guess what 5 hours after the installation technician left the internet didn't work. He called them up, which was a 3 hour hold, and they wanted to charge him $80 for a technician visit. $80 FOR A TECHNICIAN VISIT, they didn't even want to check his internet remotely, like they do here in Bolivia. It's all nickle and diming, and you can't do shit about it. The FCC is working for Comcast, not for the people. Don't you get that?

jeremyt 12y ago
Well, I suspect one of the reasons why they can do that is because they're charging you $90 per month for a 2 Mb connection. I pay $27 per month here in the state for a 25/5 connection that routinely gets about 8/3.
k-mcgrady 12y ago
>> I don't understand how in Bolivia I can pay that, and have exactly that with minimal fuss. Exactly! Anyone who thinks fast lanes are necessary must not have looked at how the internet works in the rest of the world where we don't have such huge problems with net neutrality.
whoopdedo 12y ago
> I pay X/s, I want X/s. If you don't have a SLA, you're not paying for X/s. The cheap consumer plans only advertise the speed as a potential maximum with no guarantee. Moreover, they explicitly state that overuse will result in slower speeds. So if you want X/s, then you'll need a stricter contract, and will have to pay a lot more than what you're doing now. Or, the ISP can request that upstream services subsidize the bandwidth for downstream customers and that way you won't have to pay more.