blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
I wasnt commenting on DSL. I was commenting on WAN/backbone traffic in relation to dave's naive disagreement with
I wasnt commenting on DSL. I was commenting on WAN/backbone traffic in relation to dave's naive disagreement with
Bingo! High speed internet was pushed and pushed and pushed, in advertising, for years. Still is, for that matter, though nowadays it's more of an argument as to whose high speed internet is the fastest. So now everyone's on high speed......and we start getting isp's limiting the flow of certain high bandwidth processes (p2p), and talk of unlimited internet now having limits in bandwidth??
Seems they spent more money on advertising, and not enough on expanding the pipeline to allow more flow, imho. :roll:
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Yes, yes, and no (but are venerable). It's more complicated than this, but net neutrality purists believe all traffic is equal. Which it isnt.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Well the problem really started in the mid 90's when Williams started laying dark fiber. Most of the big boys followed suit. Meanwhile, last mile improvements werent done. I know several years ago it was cheaper to buy a DS3's worth of fiber coast to coast than it was to run a T1 to an end user (in many markets). Last mile renovations have been slowly improving over the last 5 years (fiber to the curb, etc) but still have a long way to go to match backbone availability. I have read estimates from Verizon (largest backbone carrier in the US) that currently less than 30% of core fiber is lit.
I wanted to comment also about something yhou said about "its about whose high speed is fastest". Maybe Im nit-picking, if so, I apologize. In general, all high speed is about equal as far as speed goes. Meaning, latency (how fast does it take to load pages or download stuff).; But theres more behind the scenes with that. First is DNS. Most ISP's use their own DNS, and some (Cox specifically) has known DNS latency. Anyone other than a tier 1, or root, DNS gets their DNS updated from a root (I think there's 7 root servers in the US). Thats why I prefer to use a tier 1 DNS server (Level 3's 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.2.1). Your traffic can only get "there" as fast as the DNS server can process the route. Second, as far as downloads go, you have to remember your speed is only as fast as the slowest link (which may also be the server youre downloading FROM). Your traffic may very well be traversing 5 different backbone's to get to the destination. It can be complicated. Usually when people say "speed" they mean size of the pipe. With most ISP's offering 7+meg circuits, that is PLENTY for 99% of users.
Anyway, Im rambling.
It totally depends on the network and if they run those services over their IP network. The ISP will treat content it creates as trusted and offer the appropriate quality of service. Services outside of it MUST be considered best effort.
It's not a "disadvantage", it's guaranteeing the ISP's network treats their own services voice/video appropriately to provide guaranteed and appropriate service. Anything else is best effort outside their administrative control MUST be best effort delivery (next to lowest possible service).
I agree with FCC's stand on this. If I sign a contract with my ISP to pay $40/month for 5mbps, the ISP shouldn't have the right to tell me how I can use my 5mbps bandwidth, if I use this 5mbps bandwidth once a day, the whole day or the whole month.
Internet neutrality as discussed in this thread is about blacking those bandwidth hogging service. But when ISP offers those packages to consumers, they should've done their homework and consider the worst case scenario already. If the ISP tells their customers that customers are paying for $40/month @5mbps, but in fact the ISP don't have the bandwidth if their customers all utilize that bandwidth, that's false advertising.
If ISP don't have the bandwidth, they better not sell something they don't have. They have the freedom, and they have done tiered pricing like $xx for 512kbps, $xx for 1mbps...etc. Bottom line is, if they sell the bandwidth, they should expect their customer to use it and they should honor the contract without the little disclaimer that oh, if you actually do something bandwidth intensive, you won't get your full bandwidth.
IMHO, ISP are fighting this so they are able to continue offer packages that sounds really good, like 10mbps, 20mbps, without having the actual bandwidth to support those bandwidth if people actually use that much bandwidth. That is just not a fair business practice.
Internet neutrality as discussed in this thread is about blacking those bandwidth hogging service. But when ISP offers those packages to consumers, they should've done their homework and consider the worst case scenario already. If the ISP tells their customers that customers are paying for $40/month @5mbps, but in fact the ISP don't have the bandwidth if their customers all utilize that bandwidth, that's false advertising.
If ISP don't have the bandwidth, they better not sell something they don't have. They have the freedom, and they have done tiered pricing like $xx for 512kbps, $xx for 1mbps...etc. Bottom line is, if they sell the bandwidth, they should expect their customer to use it and they should honor the contract without the little disclaimer that oh, if you actually do something bandwidth intensive, you won't get your full bandwidth.
IMHO, ISP are fighting this so they are able to continue offer packages that sounds really good, like 10mbps, 20mbps, without having the actual bandwidth to support those bandwidth if people actually use that much bandwidth. That is just not a fair business practice.
I've tried to provide the technical reasons against pure "treat my traffic equally", from a technical perspective and why it is a bad idea for providing advanced services.
No network ever created outside of super high performance ones (and associated costs) will ever guarantee full line rate performance of end nodes.
You want guaranteed performance, then pay for it.
I understand where you are coming from. My point is it's ISP's reponsibililty to put forth honest claim with what they are selling. If they cannot guarantee performance, don't bullshit the consumers. If they cannot guarantee that 5mpbs whether I use that 5mbps once a while or the whole day, they better put it on paper.
I am willing to pay for what I get. What I don't want is paying for something that have hidden disclaimer and unspoken rules like oh if I use "bandwidth intensive" application that I won't get the full bandwidth I am paying for. By the way, who determines what bandwidth intensive anyway.
We're getting WAY off topic of net neutrality. The very reason why consumer broadband prices are so low are because of "that little fine print that the consumer agreed upon, but don't read."
Contracts for other communication services are much more clear. "This is what we agree upon, these are the speeds agreed upon, this is your recourse if we don't provide said speed". Of course these services and guarantees are 10s to 100s times the cost of consumer broadband.
To put it briefly contracts on interconnects between providers or providers to business customer are very detailed. Why does a home phone line cost 30 bucks but a business line cost 150? For a single phone line? Guaranteed service.
Well there is a difference between "guaranteed service" and actually putting up a network managing device/application to detect bandwidth usage and reducing the bandwidth if certain behavior is detected.
Of course we understand technical issue with providing guarantee level of service but we are not talking about that. What we are talking about is if we should allow ISP's to monitor customer's network usage and apply limitations, in additional to whatever technical limitation we already have, and result in the customer not able to access the bandwidth he/she signed up and paid for.
Just because we are residential customers, and we don't pay as much as business customers, it doesn't mean the ISP's have right to ACTIVELY take out the bandwidth that we signed up and pay for.
The behavior you describe has been struck down by the FCC in your first paragraph. It's an old story from like 2 years ago. It's really only P2P that causes a problem.
Placing the virus P2P into best effort treatment is what is considered "reasonable network management practices"
Read your contract, you didn't sign up for that bandwidth. Read the contract. Have a problem with the contract then get a lawyer and get to work on your grievances.
You have none, you agreed to it.
I am not just talking about P2P, I am talking specifically about the following quote from the OP.
"Advocates of net neutrality say Internet service providers must be barred from blocking or slowing traffic based on content. "
We are talking about accessing high bandwidth content like video, and what god knows ISP's considered "high bandwidth" content.
I know plenty about ISP SLA's, both from business side and consumer side. While there are guidelines on outage, fluctuation of services, and other provisions, there is a reference level of service in good faith, and it doesn't give ISP any right to reduce that service level by means of active access pattern monitoring without contract revision.
I don't believe you rchiu. You mention SLA's only in terms of customer point of view with no reference of latency, throughput or all the other important things. You mention "reference level of service in good faith". Get an attorney, you got screwed if you were responsible for this contract.
Read the contract, if the ISP has any right to reduce service (based on much of anything other than act of god) then it is your own damn fault for signing it. If it helps, never sign such a contract and read what you sign or get a lawyer to help you understand it.
Read the contract, if the ISP has any right to reduce service (based on much of anything other than act of god) then it is your own damn fault for signing it. If it helps, never sign such a contract and read what you sign or get a lawyer to help you understand it.
That's exactly what I have been saying. I've never seen nor signed a contract where ISP has any right to reduce service. So I don't see how this FCC force ISP to treat flow of content equally and not reduce my service have any problem.
What I don't want to see is ISP all of sudden gets a right to put up all these crap and reduce the level of service that I've signed up and paid for, and be able to say hey, that's an industry practice and government sanctioned.
See the problem we have in many markets is there is no options. If you want internet there is 1 maybe 2 companies and that's all you get to choose from.
Another problem is ISPs (in the past at least) have been known to block certain ports, or slow traffic on certain ports. This is not "best effort," if you are actively blocking or slowing certain types of traffic based on the port it uses. Giving priority to certain traffic is fine, but when you actively block or slow traffic you are no longer giving a "best effort."
The very few instances where that has occurred the FCC smacked them down.
The FCC has a new website about it's goals.
http://www.openinternet.gov
I read the full transcript of the speech on this site. It seems pretty straight forward and they're still allowing reasonable network management in times of congestion which is alot of what I've been talking about - making sure you can actively change traffic behavior based on application in times of congestion (which is what QoS is for).
So far the news I'm reading, from industry rags, say all the big providers are good the addition of two extra principles to the original 4. The main concern is from wireless cellular and the amount of video that is going to crush their network forcing prices to rise.
"The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications."
"The sixth principle is a transparency principle -- stating that providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices."
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
I have two choices here. Sprint or Charter. Using sprint currently. Nobody else can provide cable service herer because of the monopoly charter has on the lines, same thing with sprint. Congress should have NEVER deregulated phone company charges. They lied to the public and got rich and now want to complain about infrastructure. They should have taken the profits from all those years of charging for things like $4 for call waiting when it only cost them 10 cents and used it for what they promised. States need to do what NJ is doing and taking these companies to court for failure to deliver .
Great article that really gets to the matter. Also pay attention to the mentality of posters on the openinternet.gov site. They have no idea just how harmful treating all traffic the same (ie. best effort) really is to their own best interests. They want "fat dumb pipes" and hamper the progression of The Internet to a network capable of delivering voice, video and data.
http://www.wired.com/epicenter...cc-neutrality-mistake/
"Take away ISPs? ability to shape or restrict traffic, and you?ll see many carriers running into AT&T-like capacity problems. Their response will almost certainly be to make consumers pay for what they?re actually using. Want to BitTorrent all 6.7GB of the uncompressed Beatles catalog via 3G? Fine, but you?ll have to pay for the bandwidth you?re taking away from your neighbor."
http://www.wired.com/epicenter...cc-neutrality-mistake/
"Take away ISPs? ability to shape or restrict traffic, and you?ll see many carriers running into AT&T-like capacity problems. Their response will almost certainly be to make consumers pay for what they?re actually using. Want to BitTorrent all 6.7GB of the uncompressed Beatles catalog via 3G? Fine, but you?ll have to pay for the bandwidth you?re taking away from your neighbor."
That's fine, I have no problem buying 512kpbs plan, 1mpbs plan....etc depending on what I need. The underlying issue is who is making the bandwidth decision. You or the ISP. With net neutrality, consumer pick and pay for the bandwidth they need. They need voice/video, they pay for it with a plan with big fat pipe. They can pay for a 512kpbs plan if they just wanna surf the net.
Without net neutrality, ISP makes the decision that all video/voice are to be slowed, and even if you pay for a big fat pipe, you're not really getting a big fat pipe, ISP get to decide for you what goes through that pipe and how fast.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter