And your evidence that this can be fixed by a government reclassification thereof is what, exactly?
Why don't you ask Apple why the Steve Jobs vision for AppleTV has never come to pass? Because the ISPs are fighting tooth and nail against anyone who would jeopardize their gravy train, whether that's Apple or Netflix or anyone else seeking to expand Internet consumers' free choice and access to content.
Why don't you ask Apple why the Steve Jobs vision for AppleTV has never come to pass?
You’re in favor of something that will irrevocably prevent this from happening at any time in the future barring a government collapse. I think I’ll stick with my take, since I want a la carte TV at some time between the very near future and my death.
You’re in favor of something that will irrevocably prevent this from happening at any time in the future barring a government collapse. I think I’ll stick with my take, since I want a la carte TV at some time between the very near future and my death.
I'd suspect the reverse is true.
All the overly alarmist and wacky prognostications of doom voiced in this thread make we wonder why water and electricity services are not shunned by the nut jobs in the USA? I presume having standards like water purity holds back so much free enterprise ... Oh I forgot fluoridation is a scheme to control the minds of the people ... my bad! / LOL
Sorry I wasn't aiming this last comment at you, it was just convenient to stick in here ...
All the overly alarmist and wacky prognostications of doom voiced in this thread make we wonder why water and electricity services are not shunned by the nut jobs in the USA? I presume having standards like water purity holds back so much free enterprise ... Oh I forgot fluoridation is a scheme to control the minds of the people ... my bad! / LOL
Sorry I wasn't aiming this last comment at you, it was just convenient to stick in here ...
Why are people who disagree "nut jobs"? That's the weakest possible argument. It's akin to calling someone with an opposing view "the devil" (I actually saw someone do this in a local political race once!).
Why are people who disagree "nut jobs"? That's the weakest possible argument. It's akin to calling someone with an opposing view "the devil" (I actually saw someone do this in a local political race once!).
I was referring not to those partaking in a rational discussion but those 'area 51', 'tin foil hat' types that see plots in anything administered or regulated for the betterment and protection of the majority. Until of course, what ever it is, betters their lives.
You’re in favor of something that will irrevocably prevent this from happening at any time in the future barring a government collapse. I think I’ll stick with my take, since I want a la carte TV at some time between the very near future and my death.
Okay; stick with your take, but it looks like you might not have as much company as you think.
Those positive Republican polls on net-neutrality will now plunge now I bet. Simply because the President has backed it. That's America today. He should suggest Fox News watchers to vote Republican. That would confuse the hell out of them! (I say this as an Independent and a humorist so please don't shoot my cat).
It's one thing to oppose being charged more for faster access ("they're going to raise my rates again?!"), it's quite another when you realize what you are losing, both in terms of government influence and decreased competition. The simple fact is that imposing caps on prices, reduced options available to providers to make a profit, will both cause a decrease in investing and a reduction of competitors. No one enters a market if they know they cannot make a profit.
How would Apple react if the government ordered them to put a cap of $99 on every phone they sold to ensure every American had access to their phones? They'd stop innovating and investing in cutting edge materials because there would be no room for profit margins. Businesses exist because they make a profit.
I think the results of that polling demonstrate the spin on the questions influence the answers...which is what every pollster does. And it should also be noted that the Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, a person whose other company would benefit significantly by this special interest-driven legislation.
When government delivers its services through the internet, then yes internet becomes a right.
When no access to the internet significantly impairs your ability to a.) avail yourself of public services and b.) perform your obligations as a citizen, then yes internet becomes a right.
No one has the right to my labor but me. What happens when It is declared that I have the right to the product of your work? I do like the McRib. I'll be by tomorrow to exercise my rights.
A right to access doesn't mean a right to take for free. Net neutrality is just that you get the same McRib as the next guy, not a mini version just because you want to take it away vs sitting in the restaurant.
I think that companies should be allowed to adjust traffic speeds based on the protocols used to ensure quality of service for everyone but there should be limits to how much they can do this so they can't for example drop your 50Mb connection down to 1Mb just because you started a file download, video stream or video chat.
A right to access doesn't mean a right to take for free. Net neutrality is just that you get the same McRib as the next guy, not a mini version just because you want to take it away vs sitting in the restaurant.
I think that companies should be allowed to adjust traffic speeds based on the protocols used to ensure quality of service for everyone but there should be limits to how much they can do this so they can't for example drop your 50Mb connection down to 1Mb just because you started a file download, video stream or video chat.
A right these days means the government will mandate quality, availability and price, while subsidizing the difference or in the case of telcos, as part of the franchise agreement, require the franchisee to pony up stuff that benefits enough of a constituency to get the measure passed such as free wifi in parks, requiring schools and government areas to be first. The larger base of the consumership picks up the tab for rolling out infrastructure to places where the franchisee will be taking it in the shorts. There are already federal regulations that define how much of a piece the municipalities can charge and most agreements that I've seen seem to have that fee at the federal max, 5% off the top in addition to upfront. Nothing says these fees can't be lowered to spur more competition in your area.
I think what's getting confused is that Net Neutrality has nothing to do with what most people here are complaining about - their local access. This won't get more competition in their area, that's the job of the local municipality to negotiate with additional providers. It won't improve the tech that's in place in regions where there aren't enough customers to support paying for the new tech or where the cost of entry is an insurmountable barrier to entering the market. It's a function of residential population density and if the provider can make a reasonable rate of return for its stockholders before the tech turns over which is happening faster and faster. Currently backbones and distribution points are moving from LAG bundles of 10GE to bundles of 100GE per link. If people want better speeds and better tech, they place to talk to is the local body responsible for the franchises and the state legislatures who make the rules those bodies have to conform to. No Federal, State, County, etc gov is forcing Verizon, Google, AT&T and others to roll out fiber and GigE service nor is it the generosity of those companies. It's the opportunity to make a profit by expanding on what they are already doing for the customers in that area.
If people will read the article I linked from Internap on how carriers peer with one another it will demonstrate that the throttling being mentioned isn't happening. Most agreements are 2:1 in:out which actually benefits the smaller carriers who are hosting content. CEOs from several T1 ISPs are on record stating they have no plans to throttle in the manners described - neither across their Internet Backbones nor at peering points. Peering to content providers, because money is already changing hands is another story. The perceived rate limiting is most often congestion points between carrier which in some places I've seen ratios of 10:1 in:out. What happens to other legitimate streams or worse latency sensitive content like VOIP or gaming when the neither peering points nor the core connections from those points can take the traffic? Is the receiving side to bolster it's Core and Edge and pass that cost onto all those paying monthly home access fees? Content Providers always pay and it's in the best interest of the content providers to connect to the ISPs closest to most of their customers. In the Netflix example, Netflix brought up a peering to more carriers in record time to gain better quality to the customers connected off those backbones in order to gain more subscribers. They went to their customer.
A right these days means the government will mandate quality, availability and price, while subsidizing the difference or in the case of telcos, as part of the franchise agreement, require the franchisee to pony up stuff that benefits enough of a constituency to get the measure passed such as free wifi in parks, requiring schools and government areas to be first. The larger base of the consumership picks up the tab for rolling out infrastructure to places where the franchisee will be taking it in the shorts.
These statements like "pick up the tab" are always meant to make people fearful of excessive costs but it's really just resentment for paying towards something everyone benefits from. Everyone benefits from having clean water, waste disposal and in developed countries, socialised healthcare and there is no excessive tab being paid. When everyone pays, everyone pays a very small amount.
I think what's getting confused is that Net Neutrality has nothing to do with what most people here are complaining about - their local access. This won't get more competition in their area, that's the job of the local municipality to negotiate with additional providers.
What it will help ensure is that in areas where there is a monopoly created by inherent failures in the free market that there's a higher chance of getting the quality of service they're paying for.
CEOs from several T1 ISPs are on record stating they have no plans to throttle in the manners described - neither across their Internet Backbones nor at peering points.
Then there should be nothing wrong with legislation that ensures they adhere to that.
The perceived rate limiting is most often congestion points between carrier which in some places I've seen ratios of 10:1 in:out. What happens to other legitimate streams or worse latency sensitive content like VOIP or gaming when the neither peering points nor the core connections from those points can take the traffic? Is the receiving side to bolster it's Core and Edge and pass that cost onto all those paying monthly home access fees? Content Providers always pay and it's in the best interest of the content providers to connect to the ISPs closest to most of their customers. In the Netflix example, Netflix brought up a peering to more carriers in record time to gain better quality to the customers connected off those backbones in order to gain more subscribers. They went to their customer.
"What Level 3’s response makes clear is that Verizon is preferentially refusing to enable the links that would allow for better service quality, despite being paid to do so.
One Verizon customer paying for 75Mbps FiOS became frustrated and switched to a VPN provider to test whether or not the problem was on Verizon’s end. The result? A colossal surge in overall performance delivered courtesy of adding further network overhead... his initial performance using FiOS to stream Netflix without the VPN was 375Kbps. When he switched to a VPN, his performance jumped from 375Kbps to 3000Kbps — the maximum Netflix allows."
As I said before, I think there should be allowances for adjusting bandwidth to ensure quality of service for all users, I don't think an order of magnitude drop is warranted for real-time video streaming when there's a clear conflict of interest so some restrictions would be better put in place.
I don't know why people are still under the delusion that the free market will sort itself out, it doesn't:
"largely unregulated $5-trillion-a-day market. Authorities accused dealers of sharing confidential information about client orders and coordinating trades to boost their own profits."
No regulation + people acting in their self-interest = utopia? Hardly.
You’d be surprised at the appeals to emotion/poverty/pity bandied about by supposedly adult members of government, even...
Originally Posted by Kibitzer
Okay; stick with your take, but it looks like you might not have as much company as you think.
No, most people agree with me: that the Internet should be free, unfettered, and unregulated. Reclassifying it will do the opposite. The problem is that “net neutrality” has, in the past, referred to BOTH SIDES of the argument. As a term, it is now meaningless. What is important is the content for which you stand, not the terms.
These statements like "pick up the tab" are always meant to make people fearful of excessive costs but it's really just resentment for paying towards something everyone benefits from. Everyone benefits from having clean water, waste disposal and in developed countries, socialised healthcare and there is no excessive tab being paid. When everyone pays, everyone pays a very small amount.
What it will help ensure is that in areas where there is a monopoly created by inherent failures in the free market that there's a higher chance of getting the quality of service they're paying for.
No, it does not address locally legal monopolies. Authorized by federal and State Law
Then there should be nothing wrong with legislation that ensures they adhere to that.
When did we start talking about legislation? Isn't this about FCC extending regulation authority in the absence of legislative authority. Pass the laws or regulations that don't address the problem... How does that make sense in anything but a disingenuous political maneuver? And then?
"What Level 3’s response makes clear is that Verizon is preferentially refusing to enable the links that would allow for better service quality, despite being paid to do so.
One Verizon customer paying for 75Mbps FiOS became frustrated and switched to a VPN provider to test whether or not the problem was on Verizon’s end. The result? A colossal surge in overall performance delivered courtesy of adding further network overhead... his initial performance using FiOS to stream Netflix without the VPN was 375Kbps. When he switched to a VPN, his performance jumped from 375Kbps to 3000Kbps — the maximum Netflix allows."
As I said before, I think there should be allowances for adjusting bandwidth to ensure quality of service for all users, I don't think an order of magnitude drop is warranted for real-time video streaming when there's a clear conflict of interest so some restrictions would be better put in place.
I don't know why people are still under the delusion that the free market will sort itself out, it doesn't:
I read that article and had a good laugh at the VPN thing - doesn't that utilize a proxy with a different source IP? Couldn't that use a completely different path from Netflix? Could Netflix give a completely different URL for the transfer based on that new source IP or the the IP resolver making the request which is a way geographic load balancing works in CDN's/Clouds? This can also be the result of using Google DNS; you're more likely to get a less than optimal path because the address of the DNS revolver may not be in you part of the Internet.
Level3 was in violation of their peering agreement and were more than willing to open up their pipes because they'd already let the stuff through their backbone. Why is no one asking why Netflix traffic was traversing one T1 ISP to get to a 2nd T1 ISP. That pretty picture that shows the Verizon core at 46% does not reflect the real edge architectures and available last mile to that NAP fromthe cores. Nor would have opening the pipes solved the real problem - the traffic engineering out of Netflix toward their peers. And here's not-news, the free market solved the problem.
Agreements between carriers is a free market- trade value for value and no currency changes hands as long as peers stay within contract terms; each side pays for their own gear, power, cooling, fiber, building space, etc. I never said local access was a free market cause it isn't - it's regulated monopoly. How's that working? I'd say it's unable to keep pace. I want increased competition in local markets. Voters there, if accepted, should expect bond iniatives, roads torn up laying fiber and higher costs absorbed somewhere.
Edit: I re-read and you mentioned realtime video streaming. What are you thinking as realtime? Buffered replay or something like live sports?
I just checked your post history and a few years ago when the net neutrality issue first surfaced, you were all for it, even giving kudos to Google for championing it. What changed?
A right these days means the government will mandate quality, availability and price, while subsidizing the difference or in the case of telcos, as part of the franchise agreement, require the franchisee to pony up stuff that benefits enough of a constituency to get the measure passed such as free wifi in parks, requiring schools and government areas to be first. The larger base of the consumership picks up the tab for rolling out infrastructure to places where the franchisee will be taking it in the shorts. There are already federal regulations that define how much of a piece the municipalities can charge and most agreements that I've seen seem to have that fee at the federal max, 5% off the top in addition to upfront. Nothing says these fees can't be lowered to spur more competition in your area.
I think what's getting confused is that Net Neutrality has nothing to do with what most people here are complaining about - their local access. This won't get more competition in their area, that's the job of the local municipality to negotiate with additional providers. It won't improve the tech that's in place in regions where there aren't enough customers to support paying for the new tech or where the cost of entry is an insurmountable barrier to entering the market. It's a function of residential population density and if the provider can make a reasonable rate of return for its stockholders before the tech turns over which is happening faster and faster. Currently backbones and distribution points are moving from LAG bundles of 10GE to bundles of 100GE per link. If people want better speeds and better tech, they place to talk to is the local body responsible for the franchises and the state legislatures who make the rules those bodies have to conform to. No Federal, State, County, etc gov is forcing Verizon, Google, AT&T and others to roll out fiber and GigE service nor is it the generosity of those companies.
The government used to demand a certain level of quality, and service, but all those regulations were laxed during the Bush administration due to the lobbying of the telcos.
There are current movements to force Verizon to run FiOS in the unserved areas in its footprint, and their answer has been no.
The government used to demand a certain level of quality, and service, but all those regulations were laxed during the Bush administration due to the lobbying of the telcos.
There are current movements to force Verizon to run FiOS in the unserved areas in its footprint, and their answer has been no.
NY, NY recently re-up'd its franchise with Time Warner - did they open things up to other carriers? What did they require outside of residential access? Read what Google and AT&T agreed to for the privilege of deploying Fiber GigE in Texas.
This is the same issue we all have with wireless. Last mile providers are required to give equal terms to all carriers, including the competition, so that's not the barrier. Why is it so hard to get a competing wireless tower in service inside areas with established service. Look, the problem does not care about which color is in the chair in the Oval Office and neither do I. Until competition at the LEC improves, the landscape can't change. Current providers can't profit after upgrading and new carriers have not shot at breaking even.
AT&T and Verizon are driving up 45mbps throughover 30 yr old 2-pair. That happened without local or federal regulation but there are always limits to current Tech and in this case distance/quality. They are also pumping up to 4 HD channels over the same 2-pair at the same time.
Edit: There are several providers working on over the top, subscription based, ala carte because it is the undeniable future. Some are attempting to bypass legacy cable infrastructure with the nexter-gen LTE and deliver live content via multicast to fixed and mobile. All this is market driven. Don't yuh think that scares TW and CC? Hmmm.
NY, NY recently re-up'd its franchise with Time Warner - did they open things up to other carriers? What did they require outside of residential access? Read what Google and AT&T agreed to for the privilege of deploying Fiber GigE in Texas.
This is the same issue we all have with wireless. Last mile providers are required to give equal terms to all carriers, including the competition, so that's not the barrier. Why is it so hard to get a competing wireless tower in service inside areas with established service. Look, the problem does not care about which color is in the chair in the Oval Office and neither do I. Until competition at the LEC improves, the landscape can't change. Current providers can't profit after upgrading and new carriers have not shot at breaking even.
AT&T and Verizon are driving up 45mbps throughover 30 yr old 2-pair. That happened without local or federal regulation but there are always limits to current Tech and in this case distance/quality. They are also pumping up to 4 HD channels over the same 2-pair at the same time.
The Public Service Commission used to require Verizon to 24 hour repairs on a certain percentage of lines. If they went above that number they were fined. The 24 hours were from when the outage was reported by the customer, and it was exactly 24 hours after. Now it's in business hours, the clock stops at 5 PM everyday, and the weekends don't count. Service outages that used to last a day now last weeks, and months.
The Public Service Commission used to require Verizon to 24 hour repairs on a certain percentage of lines. If they went above that number they were fined. The 24 hours were from when the outage was reported by the customer, and it was exactly 24 hours after. Now it's in business hours, the clock stops at 5 PM everyday, and the weekends don't count. Service outages that used to last a day now last weeks, and months.
I don't doubt it a bit. And the 536 people in DC can fix this? Maybe we're saying the same thing? The problems begin local.
Edit: much trouble comes with having a single SLA for the whole municipality ignoring real factors. I've watch whole cities be deprived of ISDN because it could not be delivered everywhere due to either the physics or cost.. How can 100yr old infrastructure have the same potential as expanding or annexed lands where potential is beyond measure?
it does not address locally legal monopolies. Authorized by federal and State Law
When monopolies happen, blame the government for allowing the free market to sort itself out and failing (reworded as authorizing the monopoly to make it sound like they are guilty through their inaction); when the government moves in to block a potential monopoly, blame the government for interfering in the free market. What should they have done to prevent the local monopolies that you'd be happy with?
I read that article and had a good laugh at the VPN thing - doesn't that utilize a proxy with a different source IP? Couldn't that use a completely different path from Netflix? Could Netflix give a completely different URL for the transfer based on that new source IP or the the IP resolver making the request which is a way geographic load balancing works in CDN's/Clouds?
It could be any of those things but there's no reason why Netflix would be limiting their own service like that and have it change so abruptly:
[VIDEO]
The VPN just hides what you do from the ISP. It seems to me like they Verizon was using their position to help their own streaming service. Maybe they'll stop now that it failed:
I want increased competition in local markets. Voters there, if accepted, should expect bond iniatives, roads torn up laying fiber and higher costs absorbed somewhere.
There doesn't need to be 5 cables from 5 companies in every street just like there aren't 5 sets of power lines, water pipes or waste pipes. Infrastructure can be shared just fine. No added costs, shared costs and regulated to ensure that users on those limited lines aren't shafted by whoever is offering service over them.
When monopolies happen, blame the government for allowing the free market to sort itself out and failing (reworded as authorizing the monopoly to make it sound like they are guilty through their inaction); when the government moves in to block a potential monopoly, blame the government for interfering in the free market. What should they have done to prevent the local monopolies that you'd be happy with?
This needs to happen first but then the regulations will be set and you'll benefit from them.
There's massive potential for anti-competitive behaviour no matter if it happens or not and it needs to be regulated.
There doesn't need to be 5 cables from 5 companies in every street just like there aren't 5 sets of power lines, water pipes or waste pipes. Infrastructure can be shared just fine. No added costs, shared costs and regulated to ensure that users on those limited lines aren't shafted by whoever is offering service over them.
The government granted these monopolies, and are called a 'natural monopoly'. There were strict service standards that had to be maintained, any increase in fees had to be approved, and the request was posted in the local newspapers, so while a company was given a monopoly it was handcuffed from abusing its position. All these regulations, and safeguards had slowly been away with.
Comments
And your evidence that this can be fixed by a government reclassification thereof is what, exactly?
Why don't you ask Apple why the Steve Jobs vision for AppleTV has never come to pass? Because the ISPs are fighting tooth and nail against anyone who would jeopardize their gravy train, whether that's Apple or Netflix or anyone else seeking to expand Internet consumers' free choice and access to content.
You’re in favor of something that will irrevocably prevent this from happening at any time in the future barring a government collapse. I think I’ll stick with my take, since I want a la carte TV at some time between the very near future and my death.
I'd suspect the reverse is true.
All the overly alarmist and wacky prognostications of doom voiced in this thread make we wonder why water and electricity services are not shunned by the nut jobs in the USA? I presume having standards like water purity holds back so much free enterprise ... Oh I forgot fluoridation is a scheme to control the minds of the people ... my bad! / LOL
Sorry I wasn't aiming this last comment at you, it was just convenient to stick in here ...
Why are people who disagree "nut jobs"? That's the weakest possible argument. It's akin to calling someone with an opposing view "the devil" (I actually saw someone do this in a local political race once!).
I was referring not to those partaking in a rational discussion but those 'area 51', 'tin foil hat' types that see plots in anything administered or regulated for the betterment and protection of the majority. Until of course, what ever it is, betters their lives.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/12/wonkbook-polling-shows-even-republicans-overwhelmingly-support-net-neutrality/
Edit: BTW, the WaPo article links to an excellent overview on the Internet and competition.
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/keeping-the-internet-competitive
Those positive Republican polls on net-neutrality will now plunge now I bet. Simply because the President has backed it. That's America today. He should suggest Fox News watchers to vote Republican. That would confuse the hell out of them!
It's one thing to oppose being charged more for faster access ("they're going to raise my rates again?!"), it's quite another when you realize what you are losing, both in terms of government influence and decreased competition. The simple fact is that imposing caps on prices, reduced options available to providers to make a profit, will both cause a decrease in investing and a reduction of competitors. No one enters a market if they know they cannot make a profit.
How would Apple react if the government ordered them to put a cap of $99 on every phone they sold to ensure every American had access to their phones? They'd stop innovating and investing in cutting edge materials because there would be no room for profit margins. Businesses exist because they make a profit.
I think the results of that polling demonstrate the spin on the questions influence the answers...which is what every pollster does. And it should also be noted that the Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, a person whose other company would benefit significantly by this special interest-driven legislation.
Oh, and speaking of conflicts of interest: http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-06/jeff-bezos-plan-for-news-washington-post-becomes-an-amazon-product
A right to access doesn't mean a right to take for free. Net neutrality is just that you get the same McRib as the next guy, not a mini version just because you want to take it away vs sitting in the restaurant.
I think that companies should be allowed to adjust traffic speeds based on the protocols used to ensure quality of service for everyone but there should be limits to how much they can do this so they can't for example drop your 50Mb connection down to 1Mb just because you started a file download, video stream or video chat.
A right these days means the government will mandate quality, availability and price, while subsidizing the difference or in the case of telcos, as part of the franchise agreement, require the franchisee to pony up stuff that benefits enough of a constituency to get the measure passed such as free wifi in parks, requiring schools and government areas to be first. The larger base of the consumership picks up the tab for rolling out infrastructure to places where the franchisee will be taking it in the shorts. There are already federal regulations that define how much of a piece the municipalities can charge and most agreements that I've seen seem to have that fee at the federal max, 5% off the top in addition to upfront. Nothing says these fees can't be lowered to spur more competition in your area.
I think what's getting confused is that Net Neutrality has nothing to do with what most people here are complaining about - their local access. This won't get more competition in their area, that's the job of the local municipality to negotiate with additional providers. It won't improve the tech that's in place in regions where there aren't enough customers to support paying for the new tech or where the cost of entry is an insurmountable barrier to entering the market. It's a function of residential population density and if the provider can make a reasonable rate of return for its stockholders before the tech turns over which is happening faster and faster. Currently backbones and distribution points are moving from LAG bundles of 10GE to bundles of 100GE per link. If people want better speeds and better tech, they place to talk to is the local body responsible for the franchises and the state legislatures who make the rules those bodies have to conform to. No Federal, State, County, etc gov is forcing Verizon, Google, AT&T and others to roll out fiber and GigE service nor is it the generosity of those companies. It's the opportunity to make a profit by expanding on what they are already doing for the customers in that area.
If people will read the article I linked from Internap on how carriers peer with one another it will demonstrate that the throttling being mentioned isn't happening. Most agreements are 2:1 in:out which actually benefits the smaller carriers who are hosting content. CEOs from several T1 ISPs are on record stating they have no plans to throttle in the manners described - neither across their Internet Backbones nor at peering points. Peering to content providers, because money is already changing hands is another story. The perceived rate limiting is most often congestion points between carrier which in some places I've seen ratios of 10:1 in:out. What happens to other legitimate streams or worse latency sensitive content like VOIP or gaming when the neither peering points nor the core connections from those points can take the traffic? Is the receiving side to bolster it's Core and Edge and pass that cost onto all those paying monthly home access fees? Content Providers always pay and it's in the best interest of the content providers to connect to the ISPs closest to most of their customers. In the Netflix example, Netflix brought up a peering to more carriers in record time to gain better quality to the customers connected off those backbones in order to gain more subscribers. They went to their customer.
Peace.
These statements like "pick up the tab" are always meant to make people fearful of excessive costs but it's really just resentment for paying towards something everyone benefits from. Everyone benefits from having clean water, waste disposal and in developed countries, socialised healthcare and there is no excessive tab being paid. When everyone pays, everyone pays a very small amount.
What it will help ensure is that in areas where there is a monopoly created by inherent failures in the free market that there's a higher chance of getting the quality of service they're paying for.
Then there should be nothing wrong with legislation that ensures they adhere to that.
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth
"What Level 3’s response makes clear is that Verizon is preferentially refusing to enable the links that would allow for better service quality, despite being paid to do so.
One Verizon customer paying for 75Mbps FiOS became frustrated and switched to a VPN provider to test whether or not the problem was on Verizon’s end. The result? A colossal surge in overall performance delivered courtesy of adding further network overhead... his initial performance using FiOS to stream Netflix without the VPN was 375Kbps. When he switched to a VPN, his performance jumped from 375Kbps to 3000Kbps — the maximum Netflix allows."
As I said before, I think there should be allowances for adjusting bandwidth to ensure quality of service for all users, I don't think an order of magnitude drop is warranted for real-time video streaming when there's a clear conflict of interest so some restrictions would be better put in place.
I don't know why people are still under the delusion that the free market will sort itself out, it doesn't:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/12/us-banks-forex-settlement-cftc-idUSKCN0IW0E520141112
"largely unregulated $5-trillion-a-day market. Authorities accused dealers of sharing confidential information about client orders and coordinating trades to boost their own profits."
No regulation + people acting in their self-interest = utopia? Hardly.
You’d be surprised at the appeals to emotion/poverty/pity bandied about by supposedly adult members of government, even...
No, most people agree with me: that the Internet should be free, unfettered, and unregulated. Reclassifying it will do the opposite. The problem is that “net neutrality” has, in the past, referred to BOTH SIDES of the argument. As a term, it is now meaningless. What is important is the content for which you stand, not the terms.
No, it does not address locally legal monopolies. Authorized by federal and State Law
When did we start talking about legislation? Isn't this about FCC extending regulation authority in the absence of legislative authority. Pass the laws or regulations that don't address the problem... How does that make sense in anything but a disingenuous political maneuver? And then?
I read that article and had a good laugh at the VPN thing - doesn't that utilize a proxy with a different source IP? Couldn't that use a completely different path from Netflix? Could Netflix give a completely different URL for the transfer based on that new source IP or the the IP resolver making the request which is a way geographic load balancing works in CDN's/Clouds? This can also be the result of using Google DNS; you're more likely to get a less than optimal path because the address of the DNS revolver may not be in you part of the Internet.
Level3 was in violation of their peering agreement and were more than willing to open up their pipes because they'd already let the stuff through their backbone. Why is no one asking why Netflix traffic was traversing one T1 ISP to get to a 2nd T1 ISP. That pretty picture that shows the Verizon core at 46% does not reflect the real edge architectures and available last mile to that NAP fromthe cores. Nor would have opening the pipes solved the real problem - the traffic engineering out of Netflix toward their peers. And here's not-news, the free market solved the problem.
Agreements between carriers is a free market- trade value for value and no currency changes hands as long as peers stay within contract terms; each side pays for their own gear, power, cooling, fiber, building space, etc. I never said local access was a free market cause it isn't - it's regulated monopoly. How's that working? I'd say it's unable to keep pace. I want increased competition in local markets. Voters there, if accepted, should expect bond iniatives, roads torn up laying fiber and higher costs absorbed somewhere.
Edit: I re-read and you mentioned realtime video streaming. What are you thinking as realtime? Buffered replay or something like live sports?
No, most people agree with me:
I just checked your post history and a few years ago when the net neutrality issue first surfaced, you were all for it, even giving kudos to Google for championing it. What changed?
The government used to demand a certain level of quality, and service, but all those regulations were laxed during the Bush administration due to the lobbying of the telcos.
There are current movements to force Verizon to run FiOS in the unserved areas in its footprint, and their answer has been no.
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-is-Unmoved-By-Your-Towns-Rally-Demanding-More-FiOS-131200
NY, NY recently re-up'd its franchise with Time Warner - did they open things up to other carriers? What did they require outside of residential access? Read what Google and AT&T agreed to for the privilege of deploying Fiber GigE in Texas.
This is the same issue we all have with wireless. Last mile providers are required to give equal terms to all carriers, including the competition, so that's not the barrier. Why is it so hard to get a competing wireless tower in service inside areas with established service. Look, the problem does not care about which color is in the chair in the Oval Office and neither do I. Until competition at the LEC improves, the landscape can't change. Current providers can't profit after upgrading and new carriers have not shot at breaking even.
AT&T and Verizon are driving up 45mbps throughover 30 yr old 2-pair. That happened without local or federal regulation but there are always limits to current Tech and in this case distance/quality. They are also pumping up to 4 HD channels over the same 2-pair at the same time.
Edit: There are several providers working on over the top, subscription based, ala carte because it is the undeniable future. Some are attempting to bypass legacy cable infrastructure with the nexter-gen LTE and deliver live content via multicast to fixed and mobile. All this is market driven. Don't yuh think that scares TW and CC? Hmmm.
The Public Service Commission used to require Verizon to 24 hour repairs on a certain percentage of lines. If they went above that number they were fined. The 24 hours were from when the outage was reported by the customer, and it was exactly 24 hours after. Now it's in business hours, the clock stops at 5 PM everyday, and the weekends don't count. Service outages that used to last a day now last weeks, and months.
I don't doubt it a bit. And the 536 people in DC can fix this? Maybe we're saying the same thing? The problems begin local.
Edit: much trouble comes with having a single SLA for the whole municipality ignoring real factors. I've watch whole cities be deprived of ISDN because it could not be delivered everywhere due to either the physics or cost.. How can 100yr old infrastructure have the same potential as expanding or annexed lands where potential is beyond measure?
When monopolies happen, blame the government for allowing the free market to sort itself out and failing (reworded as authorizing the monopoly to make it sound like they are guilty through their inaction); when the government moves in to block a potential monopoly, blame the government for interfering in the free market. What should they have done to prevent the local monopolies that you'd be happy with?
This needs to happen first but then the regulations will be set and you'll benefit from them.
It could be any of those things but there's no reason why Netflix would be limiting their own service like that and have it change so abruptly:
[VIDEO]
The VPN just hides what you do from the ISP. It seems to me like they Verizon was using their position to help their own streaming service. Maybe they'll stop now that it failed:
http://bgr.com/2014/10/06/verizons-redbox-instant-vs-netflix/
There's massive potential for anti-competitive behaviour no matter if it happens or not and it needs to be regulated.
There doesn't need to be 5 cables from 5 companies in every street just like there aren't 5 sets of power lines, water pipes or waste pipes. Infrastructure can be shared just fine. No added costs, shared costs and regulated to ensure that users on those limited lines aren't shafted by whoever is offering service over them.
Buffered replay, which still has to average real-time streaming.
The government granted these monopolies, and are called a 'natural monopoly'. There were strict service standards that had to be maintained, any increase in fees had to be approved, and the request was posted in the local newspapers, so while a company was given a monopoly it was handcuffed from abusing its position. All these regulations, and safeguards had slowly been away with.