no more internet freedom.

#51
#51
utvolpj said:
maybe, maybe not. Comcast is still trying to charge a service like Netflix (albeit indirectly) for content their users requested which makes their content look more attractive
Click to expand...

i don't have a problem with it. netflix can take their business elsewhere and i'm sure their customers will follow (i know i would). it's not as though there aren't numerous internet options available.
 
#52
#52
droski said:
i don't have a problem with it. netflix can take their business elsewhere and i'm sure their customers will follow (i know i would). it's not as though there aren't numerous internet options available.
Click to expand...

where are they going to take it? Their model is moving to streaming and the service providers are trying to either get more money from them or make it basically unwatchable.
 
#53
#53
utvolpj said:
maybe, maybe not. Comcast is still trying to charge a service like Netflix (albeit indirectly) for content their users requested which makes their content look more attractive
Click to expand...

Net Neutrality is about the Prioritization of network traffic not how ISPs charge backbone providers like L3 for their content.
 
#54
#54
utvolpj said:
where are they going to take it? Their model is moving to streaming and the service providers are trying to either get more money from them or make it basically unwatchable.
Click to expand...

the competition for internet is pretty strong. i can't see everyone cutting off netflix for that reason and surely those who don't would could acquire subscribers.
 
#55
#55
lumberjack4 said:
Net Neutrality is about the Prioritization of network traffic not how ISPs charge backbone providers like L3 for their content.
Click to expand...

don't pay their fees you don't get priority or blocked altogether. Seems like it fits to me.

it's about the service providers giving their customers requested content
 
Last edited:
#56
#56
droski said:
the competition for internet is pretty strong. i can't see everyone cutting off netflix for that reason and surely those who don't would could acquire subscribers.
Click to expand...

in large markets it is but it's not a painless process to switch.
 
#57
#57
OrangeYankee said:
Eh while I do not want the government to have it's hand in any media related cookie jar at all, this has become one of those issues where the truth will never be quite known as you have alarmists on both ends trying their best to make their angle sound the most appealing. As the way the debate was formed two years ago, I was pretty much on the side of those who were for it, now I'm finding myself on the opposite side.
Click to expand...

I think anytime you hear the government say it will be better, that should be alarming. if they talking about 'fairness' or it will be help all Americans, you can bet it will only help them gain more power.
 
#59
#59
utvolpj said:
don't pay their fees you don't get priority or blocked altogether. Seems like it fits
Click to expand...

Didn't really want to get into this now. Its a little long, but here it goes.

Under current arrangements Akami is the backbone provider that distributes Netflix across the web. A backbone provider is the entity that transports data cross-country or around the globe at higher then normal speeds. Backbone providers are essentially the 'fast' part of the internet. ISPs, like Comcast, are the entities that bridge the gap between you, the end user, and the backbone providers. ISPs need the backbone providers so that users' can access the full internet and backbone providers need the ISPs so that the internet traffic can get to the end user. If a backbone provider and ISP are feeding the relatively equal amounts of traffic onto each other's infrastructure they simply trade traffic and no fees are charged. This is the way Comcast and L3 currently operate. If however, a backbone provider is providing an ISP more traffic than the ISP is providing the backbone provider (or vis versa) a fee is charged as there is no equal exchange of stress on both infrastructures. This is the way Comcast and Akami (the current provider of Netflix) operate.

The problem came into being when Netflix held bids to see which backbone provider would win its new contract. L3 won with a considerable underbid of Akami. You see Akami already knew they had to pay Comcast for the uneven exchange of data and factored that into its bid. L3 did not. Netflix data accounts for 40% of prime time internet traffic. Surprise! Now L3 will be putting considerably more data onto Comcast's infrastructure than Comcast on L3. Naturally Comcast told L3 that their data swap arrangement will be no longer valid and they will have to pay for the data disparity, they would have to pay the same amount as L3 competitor Akami had to pay. Now L3 is complaining about Net Neutrality when it is actually no such thing. L3 made a major error in its Netflix bid and it doesn't want to have to pay even though this is how ISPs and backbone providers have always done business.

The funniest part to me is how NN fans think NN would fix this problem. In reality, Comcast is charging Akami/L3 to get prioritized traffic across the web. If NN was in effect, then this arrangement would not be possible. Instead backbone providers would have their traffic prioritized like everything else that has to travel over the open, slower, internet.
 
#62
#62
lumberjack4 said:
Didn't really want to get into this now. Its a little long, but here it goes.
Click to expand...

(sorry to snip but just like to keep things shorter)

press release from L3

“On November 19, 2010, Comcast informed Level 3 that, for the first time, it will demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content. By taking this action, Comcast is effectively putting up a toll booth at the borders of its broadband Internet access network, enabling it to unilaterally decide how much to charge for content which competes with its own cable TV and Xfinity delivered content. This action by Comcast threatens the open Internet and is a clear abuse of the dominant control that Comcast exerts in broadband access markets as the nation’s largest cable provider.
“On November 22, after being informed by Comcast that its demand for payment was ‘take it or leave it,’ Level 3 agreed to the terms, under protest, in order to ensure customers did not experience any disruptions.
Click to expand...
what it sounds like to me is Comcast wasn't prepared for the bandwidth its users would require. The issue is really that the infrastructure is not in place right now to actually handle all this stuff (big issue with NN). And yet another solution is for Comcast to not offer their 75mb/s down 12kb/s up packages anymore. Seems like that could even out the traffic somewhat right?

but yes I realize this isn't technically a NN issue and was probably a bad example to use.
 
#67
#67
joevol320 said:
of course it wouldn't be to you. sometimes pointing the truth is not good.
Click to expand...

again, what truth? Comparing this to the power grab by Chavez is ridiculous at best. I have issues with how it's being done but not the idea
 
#68
#68
utvolpj said:
(sorry to snip but just like to keep things shorter)

press release from L3

what it sounds like to me is Comcast wasn't prepared for the bandwidth its users would require. The issue is really that the infrastructure is not in place right now to actually handle all this stuff (big issue with NN). And yet another solution is for Comcast to not offer their 75mb/s down 12kb/s up packages anymore. Seems like that could even out the traffic somewhat right?

but yes I realize this isn't technically a NN issue and was probably a bad example to use.
Click to expand...

It was the first time Comcast forced L3 to pay the recurring fee because the traffic balance went out of whack. Before the Netflix deal Comcast and L3 put relatively equal amounts of traffic on each others networks. But since the Netflix deal that all changed. What L3 failed to mention was the terms of the contract given by Comcast were identical to what current Netflix provider and L3 competitor, Akami, is currently paying. L3 bid too low because they ignored a standard business practice.

Yes, you are right in that our infrastructure is insufficient at this moment to handle all the bandwidth we request from the internet. The best solution is to upgrade everyone's infrastructure, but that requires money which comes from, in part, these types of deals as well as the end user.

The problem with NN, is the inability to prioritize internet traffic. If a service's traffic, like Netflix, was not prioritized it would be unwatchable. In the emerging 4G technology all voice and data traffic are IP based. Under NN, wireless carriers would be unable to prioritize voice traffic over a data hungry iPhone/Android app. The system works now, what we need is improved infrastructure.
 
#69
#69
thought wireless carriers were still exempt from the current version? And we're a long way from true 4G
 
#70
#70
utvolpj said:
thought wireless carriers were still exempt from the current version? And we're a long way from true 4G
Click to expand...

They wouldn't be with 4G since it would be IP traffic, unless NN changed again. I'm not an expert on wireless protocols, but I know that 4G is an IP-based spec while 3G is not.
 
#71
#71
It appears to me that the ISP companies are the ones putting out this fear-mongering propaganda (that joevol is completely buying into) that there is some sort of content-based regulation in the works.

From what I've heard and read, it is not that at all. Its regulation of the ISPs and signal providers to prevent them from discriminating against people and companies by either jacking up fees they charge for access to unfavored companies or relegating those companies to slower speed access.

For example, the worry is that an ISP will have a deal with one shoe seller whereby the ISP gets a cut of their take, and as part of that will make it easier for people to see that seller's website at the expense of the competition. The idea of the regulation is to really let the net be a place for a free market.

I've seen nothing (from anyone neutral) that supports the idea that this has anything to do with the content of political speech or anything of the sort. If anyone has something different on it, please let me know.

But joevol, this means from someone who is not profiting from allowing the ISPs and providers to control the access or is beholden to their lobby.
 
#72
#72
lawgator1 said:
It appears to me that the ISP companies are the ones putting out this fear-mongering propaganda (that joevol is completely buying into) that there is some sort of content-based regulation in the works.

From what I've heard and read, it is not that at all. Its regulation of the ISPs and signal providers to prevent them from discriminating against people and companies by either jacking up fees they charge for access to unfavored companies or relegating those companies to slower speed access.
Click to expand...

They're not slowing down these services, they're simply not giving them higher priority for free.

Read my previous posts as I've tried to explain the NN situation in the Netflix case.
 
#73
#73
lumberjack4 said:
They're not slowing down these services, they're simply not giving them higher priority for free.

Read my previous posts as I've tried to explain the NN situation in the Netflix case.
Click to expand...

so what's to keep them from dropping their "normal service" to dial-up speeds and forcing companies to pay to get regular speeds? It's all in how you allow the ISP's to define it (which I don't like)

and I realize the netflix is a peering contract dispute but was using it as an example since it's definitely something that is possible without this
 
#74
#74
utvolpj said:
so what's to keep them from dropping their "normal service" to dial-up speeds and forcing companies to pay to get regular speeds? It's all in how you allow the ISP's to define it (which I don't like)

and I realize the netflix is a peering contract dispute but was using it as an example since it's definitely something that is possible without this
Click to expand...

Their "normal service" is what it is. Don't confuse not giving priority to throttling a service. Its a no win scenario because then the ISP looks bad.
 
#75
#75
lumberjack4 said:
Their "normal service" is what it is. Don't confuse not giving priority to throttling a service. Its a no win scenario because then the ISP looks bad.
Click to expand...

throttling or setting a baseline? All the same after a while since you're still in a pay-for-play model
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top