Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Defending the Open Internet

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 45 posts

Re: Defending the Open Internet

#11

Post by majormajor »

vfclists wrote: post #5

The usual and expected hatchet job from a main stream media stalwart. Neglecting the fact the fact digging up the ground to place cable, which is what the customer is actually paying for is entirely different from wiring up interconnects at core exchanges, which costs virtually nothing in comparison. The customer pays the last mile provider to go fetch with the understanding that what they pay covers everything the p…

Does net neutrality fix this issue?

If Comcast wants the extra money they're trying to get from Netflix/Level 3/etc, but is politically prohibited from doing so, then can't they still just raise end-user's prices? That would look worse from a Comcast PR perspective, but with no competition—which lets them get away with letting the quality of service degrade—does that really matter?

This (especially in terms of Netflix vs Comcast) seems like a massive distraction from the underlying competition issue. A distraction Comcast is probably happy to have.

Re: Defending the Open Internet

#12

Post by KaiserPro »

Arghh.

This simply isn't how the internet works.

Everyone pays for bandwidth, You all pay an ISP for x amount of bits per second, and y amount of transit. You pay more, for more. Unless you live in the US and you've been fucked by the incumbent monopoly.

If you're netflix, you pay a tier 1 carrier for bandwidth. as you get bigger you pay for an CDN. Bigger still, you make your own. (YMMV of course.)

to make it super cost effective, you negotiate your own peering agreement directly, as its cheaper than using cogent/level3 + akami and the like. (hence why google has so much dark fiber.)

The whole two tier internet business, has always been the case. Thats why there is both UDP and TCP. Thats why there is a priority header. Thats why there is QoS.

Yes people say that peering is free. They are simply wrong. To peer you need bandwith, which requires cables in the ground. Places like LONAP and LINX exist for mutual benefit. However at LINX private interchange traffic has been much larger than "public" interchange for years

Re: Defending the Open Internet

#13

Post by bdamm »

KaiserPro wrote: post #12

Arghh. This simply isn't how the internet works. Everyone pays for bandwidth, You all pay an ISP for x amount of bits per second, and y amount of transit. You pay more, for more. Unless you live in the US and you've been fucked by the incumbent monopoly. If you're netflix, you pay a tier 1 carrier for bandwidth. as you get bigger you pay for an CDN. Bigger still, you make your own. (YMMV of course.) to make it super…

I agree with your general message; this freedom for all is confusing to me because it's not at all natural for the operating companies.

Your statement about UDP is wrong though. TCP vs UDP is not a two-tier mechanism for quality. UDP delivers more effective throughput in most cases, as long as the application doesn't need the features that TCP provides. Consider that most TCP connections start with a UDP exchange for the DNS resolution. Even in conditions where you own all the bandwidth you may wish to use UDP.

Re: Defending the Open Internet

#14

Post by pessimizer »

rayiner wrote: post #10

It annoys me that people invoke Chinese dissidents, MIT OpenCourseware, and Wikipedia in the context of an issue that, to date, only involves for-profit companies. I don't get how people can work up a moralistic fervor over a dispute between two giant highly profitable industries. Its not that I don't believe that the internet is a tool to deliver education to the underserved, or give voice to the politically margina…

>an issue that, to date, only involves for-profit companies.

Because that isn't what this is. The arguments between these massive companies are deciding the future of peer-to-peer communications on the internet.

If the ones who own the wires win, the internet will be officially divided into two classes: servers and clients. Netflix will still be as fast as it ever was (if not faster) if it pays, and if it doesn't, the wire-owners' new replacements will be just as fast as Netflix was. All of the current players will be making massive content and distribution deals with each other, and the internet will become cable TV.

There's no technical reason that the internet has to be structured that way. This is all just massive incumbents locking out all small fry, and consequently all newcomers. The scale this is being played out in is so large that Netflix is really the newcomer in the situation; this is not just a matter of protecting an oligarchy of entertainment providers, but even a war between content producers and content distributors that has implications that affect how fast the traffic between you and your mother will be, and what programs you will be allowed to use to produce and receive that traffic.

Ultimately it's a defense of a primitive accumulation. Some people own the wires because they were first. We can either let them manipulate the market so all of their vendors have razor-thin margins and all of their consumers have the most constrained agreements and highest prices, or restrict the right of the owners to shape and filter traffic for business purposes.

Re: Defending the Open Internet

#15

Post by pessimizer »

majormajor wrote: post #11
vfclists wrote: post #5

The usual and expected hatchet job from a main stream media stalwart. Neglecting the fact the fact digging up the ground to place cable, which is what the customer is actually paying for is entirely different from wiring up interconnects at core exchanges, which costs virtually nothing in comparison. The customer pays the last mile provider to go fetch with the understanding that what they pay covers everything the p…

Does net neutrality fix this issue? If Comcast wants the extra money they're trying to get from Netflix/Level 3/etc, but is politically prohibited from doing so, then can't they still just raise end-user's prices? That would look worse from a Comcast PR perspective, but with no competition—which lets them get away with letting the quality of service degrade—does that really matter? This (especially in terms of Netfli…

>If Comcast wants the extra money they're trying to get from Netflix/Level 3/etc, but is politically prohibited from doing so, then can't they still just raise end-user's prices?

Of course they can, and will. That wouldn't divide the internet into fast lanes and slow lanes, though, and would be transparent.

Re: Defending the Open Internet

#16

Post by majormajor »

pessimizer wrote: post #15
majormajor wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does net neutrality fix this issue? If Comcast wants the extra money they're trying to get from Netflix/Level 3/etc, but is politically prohibited from doing so, then can't they still just raise end-user's prices? That would look worse from a Comcast PR perspective, but with no competition—which lets them get away with letting the quality of service degrade—does that really matter? This (especially in terms of Netfli…

>If Comcast wants the extra money they're trying to get from Netflix/Level 3/etc, but is politically prohibited from doing so, then can't they still just raise end-user's prices? Of course they can, and will. That wouldn't divide the internet into fast lanes and slow lanes, though, and would be transparent.

The follow-up becomes: is it better if more of the cost for bandwidth-intensive services is passed on to every consumer, or just to consumers of those services?

I don't know where I fall on that one.

Re: Defending the Open Internet

#17

Post by vfclists »

majormajor wrote: post #16
pessimizer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If Comcast wants the extra money they're trying to get from Netflix/Level 3/etc, but is politically prohibited from doing so, then can't they still just raise end-user's prices? Of course they can, and will. That wouldn't divide the internet into fast lanes and slow lanes, though, and would be transparent.

The follow-up becomes: is it better if more of the cost for bandwidth-intensive services is passed on to every consumer, or just to consumers of those services? I don't know where I fall on that one.

What are these costs?

Are the bottlenecks at the junction between the ISP and the customer, or at the junction between the ISP and the content provider?

Did Comcast have purchase and install new equipment to boost Netflix speeds, or did they just flip a switch on already existing equipment to open some throttles?

Re: Defending the Open Internet

#18

Post by pessimizer »

We need a chairman of the FCC that is old enough that they'll retire afterwards. Nobody wants to be the one who pulls the trigger on common carrier because they all plan to work at telecom, cable companies, and radio networks after they step down.

Of course, there's still speaking fees.

Re: Defending the Open Internet

#19

Post by _red »

majormajor wrote: post #11
vfclists wrote: post #5

The usual and expected hatchet job from a main stream media stalwart. Neglecting the fact the fact digging up the ground to place cable, which is what the customer is actually paying for is entirely different from wiring up interconnects at core exchanges, which costs virtually nothing in comparison. The customer pays the last mile provider to go fetch with the understanding that what they pay covers everything the p…

Does net neutrality fix this issue? If Comcast wants the extra money they're trying to get from Netflix/Level 3/etc, but is politically prohibited from doing so, then can't they still just raise end-user's prices? That would look worse from a Comcast PR perspective, but with no competition—which lets them get away with letting the quality of service degrade—does that really matter? This (especially in terms of Netfli…

No, NN won't fix the issue.

Even more, most NN supporters cannot actually state what they envision such laws to even do. If you ask, they will give you handwavy answers like "provide equal access"...then they will be unable / unwilling to answer any of the obvious questions that follow on from that (ie. what if I pay for faster access, what does that mean for others who don't? Is all QoS illegal now? How will NN be monitored, government installed monitoring stations in ISP? etc etc etc)

This is a political wet-dream though, lots of people clamoring for "more regulation" without any real knowledge of the details or effects. It was the same sort of lazy, unfocused clamor that brought us the Patriot Act, so be prepared.

Re: Defending the Open Internet

#20

Post by majormajor »

vfclists wrote: post #17
majormajor wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The follow-up becomes: is it better if more of the cost for bandwidth-intensive services is passed on to every consumer, or just to consumers of those services? I don't know where I fall on that one.

What are these costs? Are the bottlenecks at the junction between the ISP and the customer, or at the junction between the ISP and the content provider? Did Comcast have purchase and install new equipment to boost Netflix speeds, or did they just flip a switch on already existing equipment to open some throttles?

Presumably someone had to pay something to set up a direct interconnect between Netflix and Comcast to bypass the delivery networks that were used before. But more generally, I'd refer you back to my original post in this thread, about the costs coming from Comcast's lack of viable competition in most markets. Without fixing that issue, the cost is going to be what the consumer will bear instead of what the market will bear, net neutrality regulations or not.
Post reply on HN