5 ms·

Netflix traffic and some hypothetical future tech like Surgery-over-IP traffic should not be prioritized equally.

jarin 12y ago
This is kind of a red herring. 1) Surgery-over-IP would be designed within the limitations of the existing infrastructure, which is more than capable of handling high resolution real-time video. 2) Surgery-over-IP would be useful mostly in areas that are unlikely to have reliable high speed internet access (poor countries, battlefields, etc.). 3) Netflix traffic is streamed to the customer using a strategy that tries to minimize the number of hops it has to take (i.e. content delivery network). This reduces congested links for something that would be a point-to-point application like remote surgery.
- droopybuns 12y ago
  Really, Red Herring? It is not distracting, and in fact is not intended to be distracting. I argue that it is certainly uncomfortable for most technologists. We are still at the very beginning of the Internet. With all the connected devices that are coming online, the nature of network traffic at a macro level is going to change. We really don't know where it's going to be tomorrow. All of the pro-net-neutrality arguments seem to ultimately boil down to a desire to avoid a "buffering" toast on any video. The practical reality is that the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. Because "BUFFERING" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKcjQPVwfDk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKcjQPVwfDk
bequanna 12y ago
Yes they should. Usually, I don't like making the 'slippery slope' argument, but it is quite appropriate here. The dangers are real. We can allow nothing less than forcing IPSs to maintain complete neutrality on traffic type. In your scenario, an ISP will determine that an organization is using their internet connection for this high-priority operation. The ISP then realizes that they can essentially extort the surgeon/hospital. This is a mafia-like protection scam. "Don't want to pay up? Gee, it sure would be terrible if that internet connection of yours was to drop out at the wrong time." Don't think this scenario is possible? I would argue it is probable.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- droopybuns 12y ago
  You pay to guarantee availability. The urgency of netflix is not equivalent to a surgery. The netflix traffic is a threat to the surgery traffic. The ISP doesn't extort- the customer pays for service guarantees. This is already what happens today in MPLS vpns. Savvy technologists are going to demand guarantees that other tenants can't disrupt their service. This is in no way a mafia-like protection scam. There is a certain allotment of bandwidth available at any given time at any given link. You can allow for reservations so that some tenants cannot encroach upon your guaranteed bandwidth for that link. This shit is already happening all the time on amazon aws, azure, google app engine, etc. These are not new concepts. Mafia protection is- pay us or we take you down. What I'm describing is- you pay so that a netflix premier doesn't disrupt your service. I'm having a hard time understanding how you can feel a service like cloudflare is not mafia-like protection.
  - bequanna 12y ago
    Cloudflare is opt-in. In my scenario, the ISP purposely degrades the service unless you pay more. This isn't hypothetical as it has been proven they did/do to Netflix traffic. Cloudflare isn't going to DDoS every site that doesn't sign up for their service. The value of doing surgery successfully via the internet is high. Are you really that naive that you don't think ISPs will attempt to capture as much of that value as they possibly can? Do you want to live in a world where an ISP determines the worth of your internet traffic and attempts to bill you based on the content, not the actual bandwidth used?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
      - bequanna 12y ago
        > You are subscribing to ad hominem attacks, without knowledge of how these services get built, paid for & capitalized upon. Please. Your company provides a commodity. You are a utility and soon will be regulated as such. There is nothing special about what you do vs. ISPx ISPy or ISPz. If our current model worked, we (the US) wouldn't have third-world quality internet at first world prices. I am a pretty conservative guy, but in this case: enough is enough. You guys got greedy, and people are pissed. > I work for an ISP Change is coming. Prepare accordingly.

jarin 12y ago

This is kind of a red herring. 1) Surgery-over-IP would be designed within the limitations of the existing infrastructure, which is more than capable of handling high resolution real-time video. 2) Surgery-over-IP would be useful mostly in areas that are unlikely to have reliable high speed internet access (poor countries, battlefields, etc.). 3) Netflix traffic is streamed to the customer using a strategy that tries to minimize the number of hops it has to take (i.e. content delivery network). This reduces congested links for something that would be a point-to-point application like remote surgery.

droopybuns 12y ago
Really, Red Herring? It is not distracting, and in fact is not intended to be distracting. I argue that it is certainly uncomfortable for most technologists. We are still at the very beginning of the Internet. With all the connected devices that are coming online, the nature of network traffic at a macro level is going to change. We really don't know where it's going to be tomorrow. All of the pro-net-neutrality arguments seem to ultimately boil down to a desire to avoid a "buffering" toast on any video. The practical reality is that the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. Because "BUFFERING" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKcjQPVwfDk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKcjQPVwfDk

bequanna 12y ago

Yes they should. Usually, I don't like making the 'slippery slope' argument, but it is quite appropriate here. The dangers are real. We can allow nothing less than forcing IPSs to maintain complete neutrality on traffic type. In your scenario, an ISP will determine that an organization is using their internet connection for this high-priority operation. The ISP then realizes that they can essentially extort the surgeon/hospital. This is a mafia-like protection scam. "Don't want to pay up? Gee, it sure would be terrible if that internet connection of yours was to drop out at the wrong time." Don't think this scenario is possible? I would argue it is probable.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
droopybuns 12y ago
You pay to guarantee availability. The urgency of netflix is not equivalent to a surgery. The netflix traffic is a threat to the surgery traffic. The ISP doesn't extort- the customer pays for service guarantees. This is already what happens today in MPLS vpns. Savvy technologists are going to demand guarantees that other tenants can't disrupt their service. This is in no way a mafia-like protection scam. There is a certain allotment of bandwidth available at any given time at any given link. You can allow for reservations so that some tenants cannot encroach upon your guaranteed bandwidth for that link. This shit is already happening all the time on amazon aws, azure, google app engine, etc. These are not new concepts. Mafia protection is- pay us or we take you down. What I'm describing is- you pay so that a netflix premier doesn't disrupt your service. I'm having a hard time understanding how you can feel a service like cloudflare is not mafia-like protection.
- bequanna 12y ago
  Cloudflare is opt-in. In my scenario, the ISP purposely degrades the service unless you pay more. This isn't hypothetical as it has been proven they did/do to Netflix traffic. Cloudflare isn't going to DDoS every site that doesn't sign up for their service. The value of doing surgery successfully via the internet is high. Are you really that naive that you don't think ISPs will attempt to capture as much of that value as they possibly can? Do you want to live in a world where an ISP determines the worth of your internet traffic and attempts to bill you based on the content, not the actual bandwidth used?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - bequanna 12y ago
      > You are subscribing to ad hominem attacks, without knowledge of how these services get built, paid for & capitalized upon. Please. Your company provides a commodity. You are a utility and soon will be regulated as such. There is nothing special about what you do vs. ISPx ISPy or ISPz. If our current model worked, we (the US) wouldn't have third-world quality internet at first world prices. I am a pretty conservative guy, but in this case: enough is enough. You guys got greedy, and people are pissed. > I work for an ISP Change is coming. Prepare accordingly.