-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
The Spirited Back Nine ...
- Thread starter WDW1974
- Start date
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
Here is a simple find explainer courtesy of the oatmeal…
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality
And Cgp gray has a three minute video that really explains this easily.
This isn't a political thing. It's not liberal, it's not Democrat. I'm certainly not trying to go in that direction with this. What it boils down to? Big Business.
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality
And Cgp gray has a three minute video that really explains this easily.
This isn't a political thing. It's not liberal, it's not Democrat. I'm certainly not trying to go in that direction with this. What it boils down to? Big Business.
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
Exchanges are still paid at least for the backbone carriers L3 etc, It's just that there are reciprocal agreements in place. But the ISP's want to charge for access to their customers the backbones dont care.
flynnibus
Premium Member
FUD - The problem is lumping everything under one umbrella... so people take their fringe stuff and attack the bigger picture.
The problem with the proposals is they force uniformity... and not necessarily GOOD uniformity.. but it would be uniform.. isn't that special?
Would the world be better if we forced all airlines to only offer coach class? Airline neutrality!
Would the world be better if we only had one flavor of ice cream? We couldn't allow vendors to discriminate against different brands or flavors could we? Flavor neutrality for all!!
What people fail to comprehend is.. when you try to force uniformity or equality... you eliminate both stuff above AND below the line.
Imagine being a hosting company... and being told you have to add capacity for anyone who walks up and says "give me a port" on the same terms you agreed to with someone who actually helps you? Imagine no longer being able to horse trade services that benefit you as a way of offsetting costs.
No one wants discrimination against certain traffic - the problem is the ideal doesn't work uncapped and in universal terms.
Wait until you all cry because your neighbor is saturating the network and the ISP can't do anything about it.. except reduce the amount of oversubscription they do... hence driving up YOUR costs. Ya! Net neutrality... higher costs... but we can all hug a tree and say we did the right thing.
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
Best Description of Net Neutrality as it should be that I've seen in a LONG time, Secondly this is a political issue as with the ISP as gatekeeper they are free to block political speech they don't like, Replace 'Great Firewall of China' with your local ISP - a distinction without a difference.
PrincessNelly_NJ
Well-Known Member
Psssh, we cant even get politicians to separate themselves from clear conflicts of interest. I doubt the internet would be any different.
The minute that the internet can be bought and sold to the highest bidder... we are all screwed.
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
No sane person is against proper network management but proper network management is a long way from charging on a per domain/packet basis as the ISP's dream about. The internet is about oversubscription but at some point refusing to build capacity and instead charging for access to popular services becomes simple gouging and once again points to the american propensity for financial engineering instead of the engineering we USED to do and the current net neutrality debate is all about financial engineering.
Example TDS which primarily runs rural telcos is in the process of moving it's entire network to GPON 1GB service it's a big investment but it's cheaper because after each thunderstorm they would replace 20-30 copper line cards in our district but with the GPON deployment they are not replacing any.
While Verizon has stopped FIOS (GPON) and even in NYC you can only get crappy DSL in many locations VZ wants to sell 10GB of LTE as an 'acceptable' replacement for cabled internet service.
I'm beyond disgusted with ISP behavior in the US.
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
Well that's exactly the proposal the Prez has on the table.
ABQ
Well-Known Member
Soarin' Over Pgh
Well-Known Member
Mods, I know the last page and a half are not related but they are VERY IMPORTANT. Please don't delete them. People need to read these things, and know what's going on.
Thank you...
Thank you...
flynnibus
Premium Member
See my earlier posts about people defending when they don't even understand it. Just because I make an infographic or comic it doesn't mean I know w t h I'm talking about.
Another gross simplification that is full of inaccuracies and totally misses the unintended consequences of what they preach.
Here's a simple one for people... QoS - it's not a new idea, and it would not be allowed under 'all data is equal' mentality.
Second - the utility analogies are poor.. because if you pay attention to your bill, you aren't paying for bit consumption from your ISP.. but you are paying for watt Consumption from your electric company. And just because Telsa comes along and says 'you really want this new super high load service' (aka netflix) the electric company doesn't have to come and upgrade the wires to your house just because you bought a telsa. You want more conduit.. you have to pay for it.
And the big threat of 'if we don't have this... they COULD DO THIS..' - could do? They've already been operating all this time without any regulation preventing those behaviors... in a period where competition for providers was WORSE than it is now. There is a reason providers haven't done these things.. and it's not some fictitious regulation that existing before.
These videos and the like are popular because they are one way propaganda that can't be contested or challenged with counter points.
Make a cool video... make it catchy.. and promote! Throw a couple FUD bits in there.. and you'll be the darling of the social media circles.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Key word... 'reciprocal' - that's the problem. The world has changed... its no longer about peers... but about networks built just to PUSH data... not equal exchange. CDNs, and backbones built with explicit traffic and distribution in mind. Longhaul-only companies goto a netflix and say "I'll sell you the best network ever!" and sell that.. but they don't have the ability to go end to end... instead it's a network sold to a customer on the premise you can hand off to the last mile. Then you goto the last mile providers and say "hey, I'm just another internet peer, let's exchange traffic.. its all cool... we'll just trade as equals". But they are NOT equals... one is just a content pusher. Then when their demand keeps growing, they expect the ISP to just keep adding. It's not a reciprocal situation... the long haul provider is collecting from netflix for what it demands for 'free' from the last mile provider.
The old models of 'peers' has gotten broken with the idea of content in the datacenters/exchanges and all these leased networks. It's no longer a meeting of equals but a meeting of pushers and pullers.
People are building a business on the pretense that the last mile providers should take their business 'for free' without any mutual benefit. Understandably, eventually the ISPs will start to push back. And that's what's been happening.
If the girl scouts show up at your door and you say "sure I'll buy 2 boxes" - if they show up next week with a truck and say "you need to buy all these cookies.. or else" you shouldn't be forced to take the cookies.
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
Under any sane network neutrality - certainly network operators are free to apply QoS within their borders, Other network operators may or may not honor the QoS at their edge, If the traffic is that critical then perhaps MPLS VPN is the proper choice.
Moving to a model which many non-US carriers use where one entity operates the physical plant while services are sold on a equal access basis would lead to a better and faster internet because US internet ranks somewhere about 35'th in speed and capacity.
Where does something like 'Google Fiber' fit into all of this? Arent they going to be offering a "free" internet service as well as the "100 X faster service"?
Disneyhead'71
Well-Known Member
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
The reality is US ISP's stopped building capacity around the end of the tech bubble 2001-3, Now they are screaming because the new services require basically new buildouts of network capacity which would have been affordable had they kept upgrading and expanding plant and equipment.
Now everything is a decade old and they want to keep showing Wall St their stellar financial performance which largely was achieved through cuts in CAPEX. So now we see caps and 'fast lanes' and BRAVO-SIERRA arguments about how they will no longer be able to afford to build networks.
WildcatDen
Well-Known Member
And what better place to make sure they are read than a Spirited thread. . .
PrincessNelly_NJ
Well-Known Member
Please explain...
Because the whole point/problem ISP have with net neutrality is regulation. They want to be FREE to charge whatever they want whether it be to you or the content provider.
Can you imagine Comcast being able to promote Universal's stuff over Disney's? How does that seem okay?
No one should control what content I wish to view but me. Consumers should always be in charge of what they see not ISP.
The fight against Net Neutrality is all about $$$$, nothing more.
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
Yes - and the incumbent ISP's are suing Google to PREVENT the installation of GOOG fiber in many locations, because for the first time in a decade the incumbent ISP will have to compete based on service and can no longer rely on annual price increases to keep the bottom line fat.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Again see 'rule of unintended consequences'
Dream about... and the stuff online would make you believe they DID with netflix... but in reality they did not. They did not throttle or squash netflix traffic. What they did was stop adding bandwidth for free to the peering points with the content networks built out to distribute netflix. They refused to keep adding bandwidth even tho the network was hitting saturation. And why should they have to? Because the 'old rules' said they should? The only rules don't apply when you change the game. The oft cited 'handshake agreements' no longer apply when you change the game at hand.
Yet advocates would say "they are asking for bits to be paid for twice' - which is not the case... people aren't paying per bit delievered, they are paying for access of a certain tier... access at a consumer level that is built out and sold with the built-in premise of oversubscription and commodity level service. But you won't find that in any of the youtube videos. If you want SLAs and full speed access... most ISPs will be happy to sell that to you. The sheep want to DEMAND that's what they are getting with their cable modem - but its not.. no matter how much they stomp their feet.
More like.. at some point they have to make a stand. And they did. We've heard for a decade+ now how the ISPs are going throttle traffic to protect their baseband video customer base. It didn't happen... and there wasn't any 'net neutrality' that saved us. It was the retionalship between ISPs and customers that ISPs have to face that saved us from that.
Apples and Pineapples there...