91–100 of 181 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Comcast video streaming service is not in the same category as Netflix, Hulu because...." Back to square 1.
Nope; that would simply be challenged in court.
Next fight : That ISPs advertise the minimum guaranteed bandwidth and are banned from advertising the maximum theoretical number. Then only we could measure that they do offer the same bandwidth with Netflix and Vimeo as they advertise. Net neutrality at its best. Edit: Of course the number will be very low because they have to (God forbid!) provision their network to serve this bandwidth to all customers during peak…
That's not likely going to happen nore is it a sensible thing to ask for. As an ISP how would you _guarantee_ the bandwidth for each endpoint? You would have to provision for the maximal capacity all over your network. Given that most people only utilize their channel 1% of the time, this is a huge waste! What's sensible to ask ISPs to do is: (a) Communicate historically experienced bandwith at each region (b) Provid…
There are mathematical models that describe the probability of a new call coming in at any given time. Add the system in terms of how many connections it can have active and how many it can queue, and you can calculate your required sizing for a given quality level.
As a sidenode, this is also why ISDN flatrates were doomed, because the always-connected nature of them broke the models the system was based on. And why new phone companies renting capacity from established ones could offer cheaper connections, they simply rented at a much higher allowed connection error rate.
Using similar, well, maybe even much easier math, you can calculate that your current system at your desired maximum utilization level allows for 432KiB/s downstream for every customer, but if the overall network is underutilized you can achieve up to the n MiB/s your connection is rated for.
Then you add for example hierarchical traffic shaping where queues are allowed to borrow unused bandwidth from other queues. But it is a huge investment, no doubt.
Also, guaranteed bandwidth is imho not that different from a service level target in Bit. You'll have to refund if you break the SLA, the same as if you break your promise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a property rights issue. Specifically, should private organisations be allowed to own major pieces of infrastructure? The European vision of capitalism is where you can own, say, a cafe or mobile app, and do what you want with it. However, something like a telecoms network or search engine is too important to be kept in the hands of ruthless big business, and the state needs to step in to control who said busine…
From the report: "In this context we must highlight the danger of restrictive Net Neutrality rules, in the context of 5G technologies, business applications and beyond. 5G introduces the concept of “Network Slicing” to accommodate a wide-variety of industry verticals’ business models on a common platform, at scale and with services guarantees. Automated driving, smart grid control, virtual reality and public safety s…
Not a single operator is going to delay rolling out 5G or decline to invest in 5G due to network neutrality.
Furthermore none of the given use cases are require general Internet access. I don't care what they do with those closed networks and network neutrality does not even apply to closed networks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope; that would simply be challenged in court.
However, choosing to throttle video content in general to promote their cable service would probably be allowed under this ruling. I don't know if that possibility is serious enough to worry about though.
But yeah, the public will need to stay vigilant over how national regulators implement this ruling case by case.
It encourages me to see that the European court at least has some people on it that seem to understand that net neutrality is in fact a human rights issue. And this is why Brexit is so heart-breaking. I'm surrounded by people in my personal life who think it's a fantastic idea, but they're not the most... informed? Likewise for local politicians. (Side note to my rant: I have this theory that the rise of the iPhone,…
> "What it boils down to is do you want to have us control our own laws and decisions and borders, or have to take orders from some bureaucrat in Brussels that doesn't understand us?" > Yes, I would rather have decisions made by people in Brussels that understand what they're doing. Julia Reda is a MP inside the EU parliament. She was voted in their and is not some bureaucrat. The voter turnout in Great Britain was 3…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would have to provision for the maximal capacity all over your network. Given that most people only utilize their channel 1% of the time, this is a huge waste! Agreed, everybody loves the idea of fixed allocation, but never seem to consider how much that costs. If you could buy overprovisioned 25mbps @ $50/mo, or fixed allocation 25mbps @ $5,000/mo, which do you think most people would go for...
Everyone is playing by the same rules so they would all end up advertising 2.5 mbps @ 50$ / month with speed boost if that's what they can provide. The important point is it does not actually take much bandwidth to do streaming video etc, but if you can't provide reasonable bandwidth when people want to use it then it's false advertising. PS: Don't forget back haul is actually a relatively minor cost for most ISP's.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not what transit actually costs though.
Transit isn't everything you're paying for. Your local street cabinet isn't kitted out like your local datacentre and thus prices won't be the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Note that the law is very clear that this only is allowed "provided that equivalent categories of traffic are treated equally." They can, for instance, slow down P2P traffic. What do you think about that?
comcast could in the US, and won in court. Despite US regulation being seen as quite robust. By this text, they'd need to show it was an exceptional and temporary necessity to deal with congestion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone is playing by the same rules so they would all end up advertising 2.5 mbps @ 50$ / month with speed boost if that's what they can provide. The important point is it does not actually take much bandwidth to do streaming video etc, but if you can't provide reasonable bandwidth when people want to use it then it's false advertising. PS: Don't forget back haul is actually a relatively minor cost for most ISP's.…
If utilization is generally 1% of service today, you'd be looking at 0.25mbps @ $50/mo, not 2.5
Honestly, this is like car company's advertising their top speed when dropped from an aircraft and then complaining when they need to list actual horsepower.
It encourages me to see that the European court at least has some people on it that seem to understand that net neutrality is in fact a human rights issue. And this is why Brexit is so heart-breaking. I'm surrounded by people in my personal life who think it's a fantastic idea, but they're not the most... informed? Likewise for local politicians. (Side note to my rant: I have this theory that the rise of the iPhone,…
Because even at this point, Net Neutrality is still less well protected by the EU than it was under our own national legislation.
I cannot in all good conscience support a union that has the power to undermine our civil rights. If Brits don't want those civil rights, that's their choice.
Brussels is not a force for good simply because in this case it would be an improvement for the Brits.