141–150 of 169 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fast.com is an example where ISPs actively throttle it.
What's your proof? It's most likely congestion in the routes that go to Netflix because of how many people use it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$10 per 10GB threshold over 1 TB on a 80/10 connection that's $95 month including the now $14 modem rental fee. Sometimes $50 in fees. I refuse to monitor my data usage or change my behavior. I am a single person but I host my personal non-business website from home and participate in as many peer to peer distributed and federated protocols as I can. I also do watch a bit of video media. My usage isn't only bursty, i…
It's expensive because it's dedicated bandwidth, not shared, has a SLA, which your residential connection doesn't, and comes with static IP's. They also put your house on a difference circuit from everyone else in your neighborhood, which has a cost - which explains the ETF if you move away. In your case, perhaps it's cheaper to get a $2.50/month VPS from Vultr instead of paying all these fees? You get a static IP to…
Paid fast lanes are a bad idea, but I think 100% equality for all packets is just as bad or worse. Real time traffic should be prioritized over data transfers. Right now my video call gets clobbered when I download a file. It doesn’t have to be like that.
Use quality of service controls in your router/modem. That's an end user problem, not a dumb wires problem.
I can prioritize the packets I send to my ISP, but I have no control over the order I get packets from them.
Paid fast lanes are a bad idea, but I think 100% equality for all packets is just as bad or worse. Real time traffic should be prioritized over data transfers. Right now my video call gets clobbered when I download a file. It doesn’t have to be like that.
How should your ISP know? Diffserv might help, but I doubt some shitty application will set them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Netflix is probably the most relatable case study on what fast lanes look like, because it is Netflix that pays whatever rate the teleco thinks it can insist on in order to install their CDN in your ISPs hub, that in many cases must compete with the exact same content the telco is now serving. (Side note: one more good reason for Netflix to be in the content creation game) Netflix gets to pay whatever rate to get pri…
That's not a scenario net neutrality regulation would affect. Larger companies will always have more resources, and with that they will have opportunities to invest in infrastructure and improve service that smaller competitors cannot match. There's a continuum from "choosing a more expensive cloud provider" to CDNs to these edge caches.
I'm not sure that's true. Netflix must pay a premium to the ISP to get prioritized access within the ISP in order to get their edge cache in position to compete against the ISP. That's three ways in which the ISP is not acting as a dumb pipe.
The Wikipedia understanding of network neutrality is: the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all Internet communications equally, and not discriminate or charge differently based on user, content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Netflix is probably the most relatable case study on what fast lanes look like, because it is Netflix that pays whatever rate the teleco thinks it can insist on in order to install their CDN in your ISPs hub, that in many cases must compete with the exact same content the telco is now serving. (Side note: one more good reason for Netflix to be in the content creation game) Netflix gets to pay whatever rate to get pri…
> Netflix that pays whatever rate the teleco thinks it can insist on in order to install their CDN in your ISPs hub No, that’s not a fast lane nor would be stopped by NN. You just explained that Netflix made an investment to get CDNs where they would be effective. So, I’m still curious to know where these priority traffic fast lanes are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I went with something a little different: It is completely inappropriate for Internet Service Providers to apply different traffic policies to legitimate use cases. All legitimate use cases of the service by the end user shall be given equal access rights. Restore the Title II designation for ISPs, or face the risk of a cunning and dedicated demographic working toward the destruction of the institutions that give you…
>or face the risk of a cunning and dedicated demographic working toward the destruction of the institutions that give you your power. Did you elaborate on this at all, or do you intend to make the FCC (and us) guess?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can tell right now. T-Mobile gives free data usage for video and music streaming, for instance. You can either do traffic pattern analysis or just base it on what IPs they are connecting to.
That is not independent and not net neutral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Netflix that pays whatever rate the teleco thinks it can insist on in order to install their CDN in your ISPs hub No, that’s not a fast lane nor would be stopped by NN. You just explained that Netflix made an investment to get CDNs where they would be effective. So, I’m still curious to know where these priority traffic fast lanes are.
Netflix pays Comcast in order to have that fast lane. It's more than just an infrastructure investment.
That costs the Provider significant routing and intermediate-distance (40~100km, i.e. CWDM long-range transceivers) bandwidth. This is much more expensive then feeding the google box with power.
Sometimes I feel like the only tech nerd who doesn't support NN.