Yes, those fast lanes are called PNIs between content providers and eyeball networks. They have been in existence since the time Excite@Home went to the exchanges.
GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws
31–40 of 156 posts
Re: GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws
#32If it allows paid fast lanes, then clearly it allows degradation.
That is objectively false. Degrading the "slow" lanes is only one way to produce a fast lane. Direct peering arrangements and co-location of services are two ways to create "fast" lanes without having to degrade anything. They are also not free, so it makes sense that business-to-business deals would be made to establish them (aka paid fast lanes).
The effective bandwidth of the internet looks like an hour glass. As things fan out to individual users you may have capacity for 100+mbps but no way to consume it because upstream there is a bottleneck. In many cases that bottleneck exists at the edge of an ISP or farther upstream of it. Direct peering increases the capacity of the ISP's "edge" but only for the services available on the peer. Co-location puts those services on the internal side of the bottleneck, again increasing effective capacity, but only for the services that are co-located in the ISPs datacenters. Almost all major providers (google, akamai, netflix, facebook) offer some form of co-locatable server however, those cost money to deploy and maintain.
Re: GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws
#33Here [0] is the actual text (i.e. hosted directly by congress.gov) which arstechnica was so thoughtful to not link to.
>“(2) may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.
Seems like what NN proponents want, isn't it?
>“(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the ability of broadband internet access service providers to offer specialized services.
>“(2) PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN PRACTICES.—Specialized services may not be offered or provided in ways that threaten the meaningful availability of broadband internet access service or that have been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade the purposes of this section.
Ah those might be a problem...
[0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4682...
Re: GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Explanation: you have not even done a bare minimum of attention or research on a pivotal internet-freedom issue that has been slow-boiling over the past 3 months and you are still weighing in as if your opinion is informed (let alone intellectually significant) in any respect whatsoever. It's not like it's a real deep and multi-faceted issue or anything here, you just didn't bother to do even a bare minimum of resear…
Yup, I don't hold your opinion so I am uninformed. Asked for your POV, but I'm too dumb to even attempt to explain it to. Must revert to personal slights and putdowns. Ahhhh, politics in 2017.
Joke's on me, you were only pretending to be an idiot! You were actually just a sealioning libertarian all along!
Re: GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws
#35If it allows paid fast lanes, then clearly it allows degradation.
Re: GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws
#36How is this different from me paying for more for faster internet?
Because the last mile is (sometimes) truly bandwidth limited. But the trunk lines aren't. Now they just get to extort money from us or artificially throttle us . Worse, they'll likely (as they have everywhere else) extort money for websites they have no connection to (like Facebook or Twitter) just because they can. Like an entrepreneurial thug standing outside a club and extracting an extra fee to let folks in. Or p…
Exactly opposite. Last line is not bandwidth limited - FTTH exists. FIOS and even comcast do that.
100 people at 1Gbit/sec to the edge are 100Gbit/sec in the core to content providers.
[Edit: Downvoting 2+2 being 4 is stupid]
1 Gbit/sec is easily deliverable at the edge, even if it costs 5 thousand dollars to get it connected. 1 Gbit/sec of non-oversubscribed IP transit is at least $500/mo. A building with 100 apartments would require $50,000 a month in IP transit costs. This does not include costs of the long distance fiber, locations for PNI and gear that can do 48x 100Gbit/sec ports. So your Interwebz is going to cost you either > $600 a month or you get congestion and that congestion would be coming from the core, not from the edge
Re: GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws
#37Can someone explain to me how it's evil for them to charge more money for a "bigger pipe"? Their networks can only service so much traffic; not sure why supply and demand are seen as evil in this case.
Youre getting downvotes for JAQing off - low value “just asking questions” post that’s been more and more prominent in the last 15 years.
This specific post isn’t a clear cut JAQing off post, but you made it clear in your follow up.
Re: GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws
#38It's funny how they always vehemently advocate for states rights unless these states rights get in the way of their agenda.
This isn't very charitable. You should be happy that the GOP doesn't rotely apply their 'principles' even when it's idiotic to do so. Federal laws that create 'maximums' like this always come with preemption. Otherwise a different states are going to enact different versions of NN to score political points accomplishing one of two things: a rule that tries to simplify the regulatory environment will actually make it…
I don't think the FCC did, nor can they, create a new "federal law" though, right? The FCC removed a regulation. Do states not have the right to regulate in the absence of any federal regulation?
Re: GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws
#39Can someone explain to me how it's evil for them to charge more money for a "bigger pipe"? Their networks can only service so much traffic; not sure why supply and demand are seen as evil in this case.
Yes, yes... don't explain, just downvote.
I did, fella. But I'm not sure why I wasted my time trying to explain anything to a reactionary. Might as well explain calculus to a 3 year old.
Re: GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws
#40Can someone explain to me how it's evil for them to charge more money for a "bigger pipe"? Their networks can only service so much traffic; not sure why supply and demand are seen as evil in this case.
The issue is more complex than just a bigger pipe. As a site owner, you pay a service provider (or cloud hosting service or whatever) to offer you a certain amount of bandwidth to host your site. The problem comes when other ISP's implement their fast lanes and traffic from your site doesn't get equal priority to traffic from another site who has paid that specific ISP to prioritise their traffic when serving their c…
That's also not correct. If you, as the site owner, are still talking about ISPs or cloud hosting you are someone who is riding a bicycle on a shoulder of I-95 next to semis doing 80mph in 65 zones. You are, frankly, irrelevant. Also you do want to make sure that those semis use -bypass instead of clogging your highway.
The real issue is that we allow those ISPs to determine which semis are allowed to use a bypass. Public's ( even technologically advanced public's ) mixing of the two issues is why NN fight would continue to be lost.