Net neutrality takes a major leap today!
- Thread starter anon(4698833)
- Start date
- Status
gdruin74
Well-known member
Steps to affordable health care for everyone
1- stop bogus malpractice lawsuits
2- should be more like car insurance, allow someone to buy only the coverage they want
3- allow companies to sell across state lines. Competition means lower prices.
Government handouts are not what made this country great.
And nothing is free, someone has to pay for the "free" stuff this administration keeps promising.
hydrogen3
Well-known member
kch50428
Well-known member
kilofoxtrot
Well-known member
hydrogen3
Well-known member
Santa Obama, gives away free Health care, free college. Woohoo free stuff for everybody.
Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk
grover5
Well-known member
Not big on scholarships or grants either huh. I'm shocked.
Posted via the iMore App for Android
hydrogen3
Well-known member
Yes, that is what I am saying.
Something similar like this exists for voice calls. This is not a perfect parallel, but it might help. Think of standard long distance phone calls:
You have a local telephone company. You also have a long distance company. It used to be those two things were the same. AT&T was both the local and long distance company. They built and owned all the phones and the copper connecting to them everywhere. They were a complete monopoly end to end. MCI was the first company to compete with AT&T. They built out an alternate path for long distance voice call. They build out a network of microwave links across the US. A customer could now choose a competing company when they picked up the phone to make a call that left the local market.
That is great for long distance. All well and good, but MCI could not actually ring the phone in a house. They *still* had to use AT&T at the local level to complete the call. MCI had to pay AT&T to complete the call. This type of billing still exists today. Even AT&T has to pay other companies for calls to complete since they do not own every phone network within the US anymore.
This is the position that Netflix is in. Netflix does not run a wire to each customer's house. They have to use another network to send their video. Since they are not delivering the packet personally, they must pay that network to deliver their packets.
Note that this arrangement is only for peering connections, not transit.
Netflix only had to pay "extra" when they are directly connecting to another network. They could choose to buy raw bandwidth just like you do for their video service. Think of transit like your Internet service. You connect to it and you get to browse the web. You have no choice how you packets route through the Internet. If you go to a web site that has bandwidth issues, then the site might load slow. You are not able to run a wire directly to that web site and get faster downloads.
The problem is that raw bandwidth can be costly. Not only that, but Netflix might be sending their traffic over congested routers they have no control over. Netflix is sending a lot of data. They need to make sure that every point along the path their video takes is fast. To have this level of control, they have to run their own network and peer directly. They pay for each peering connection separately.
Complete control... a huge win for Netflix.
The other win is that peering can save a company a lot of money on transit costs. Peering costs less because you are asking a network to deliver your packet directly. One network to another network. They don't have to turn around and hand off your packet to yet another network. If you were asking for a network to deliver a packet *outside* of their network, then it would be called a transit connection and they would charge more for that.
If this sounds complicated. It can be! There are buildings called "carrier hotels" that have "meet me rooms" where all the networks can easily connect to other networks for peering and transit.
Search for images of "One Wilshire meet me room" so see how crazy the wiring can get.
I have personally had to block web sites. The reason? Security. Some websites were hosting malware and I wanted to protect the users on the company network. I don't have a beef with blocking a web site. So banning the ability to block networks or web sites is not a good thing. Sometimes a network *needs* to block a network.
I also don't mind if a company pays more for prioritization. If a hospital needs low latency and they are willing to pay for it, fine. It doesn't hurt me and only helps them. I also don't mind if an ISP purposely de-prioritizes Bittorrent. Bittorrent is bulk data, no need to be timely.
I hate the term "fast lane" because prioritization is not a "lane". It is all one lane in and out, but the queues are different depending on priority. I wish the FCC would ban the term "fast lane".
This post is getting deep into the TCP stack:
Netflix, call your lawyers: FCC is ready for interconnection complaints | Ars Technica
But if you an grok what he is saying, then you will know why things like diffserv are a good idea. Diffserv can help to level the playing field for companies sending traffic over remote ports that only have transit, not peering. I suspect the FCC rule banned the use of diffserv. Diffserv would have allowed another run in the ladder for a company to move up in the world. So instead of having to jump from transit to a CDN, to peering, they could jump from transit to diffserv to CDN.
BreakingKayfabe
Well-known member
See, if I was taking a course on "Peering 101" I would have already assumed that Netflix had their own network in order to deliver content to the user considering the enormous amount of data needed to stream video content that millions of people subscribe to. It seems very reasonable that Netflix would take on that cost and I don't see it as anyone conspiring to shakedown Netflix in the fashion that people are making it out to be. The costs for a network to deliver Netflix's data are exactly that. Costly. It's as simple as you and I own a couple of retail stores right next door to each other on the same block. My store is 2,000 square feet, yours is 3,500 square feet. Your rent is going to cost more. More equipment and resources being used to deliver Netflix content, the more it should cost them.
Now if Netflix was paying the same as let's say HBO for HBO Go content at that moment in time and Netflix got slowed down until they renewed an agreement to pay more, I do think that is a shakedown.
I think a real example of what some should be up in arms about is what I mentioned earlier about T-Mobile. Your data doesn't count against you if you use your Pandora app to stream music but it will count against you if you stream Spotify. I don't know if Spotify is part of it or not, but for the sake of making a simple example. To me that feels like companies aligning with each other to discriminate against another that delivers the same content. Forget the costs. To me, that is conspiring.
Exactly! I think once people understand how the Internet works, they can immediately throw away Netflix as the poster child for Net Neutrality. Peering is the only logical way to handle traffic like Netflix generates.
Your T-Mobile/Pandora partnership is a good example. I am much more sympathetic to the idea that the two companies should be treated equal in that case. BUT, at the same time, T-Mobile wasn't blocking or throttling Spotify. They were just promoting the use of one over the other. I'm not sure I worry about that enough for the FCC to get involved.
Defining a shakedown could be difficult. Two people doing the same job might get payed very differently. How did one "shake down" the employer? Maybe the market at the time a person was hired, maybe experience, maybe someone lied, who knows for sure.
Netflix is extremely popular. Just to connect a Netflix caching box on in a network requires a connection greater than 1Gb/s. That is just a subset of the Netflix library. HBO's library is much smaller, so they might be able to get away with a 1GbE peering connection. That hardware is fairly inexpensive. Netflix might require 10 times that, which not only pushes up the one time cost, but costs downstream and the ongoing management within the ISP's network. So an ISP may have to factor that in when they quote a cost to Netflix. Next time the contract it up for negotiation, it may not cost as much. That's business, things constantly change.
grover5
Well-known member
It wasn't linked to security. It was at their discretion. It could be political, not paying the high fees larger companies could pay or just because they didn't like them. How that would have played out is anyone's guess.
Posted via the iMore App for Android
You're right, it was anyone's guess, but so far the issue really hasn't been a problem (admitted earlier in this thread). The biggest blockers of content on the Internet are governments, not companies. Even if one company blocked content, there are ways around it (VPN, wireless ISP, cell phones, satellite, Tor, etc, etc, etc). Even China has trouble blocking content because there are ways around it. There is also legal avenues (one company can sue another for preventing traffic to their site). There is also the issue of PR and public outcry. There are options. That is why many people are worried about the FCC getting involved with an issue that really didn't exist. I love the Internet, I love that there is so much free expression on it. That explosion of freedom happened once the Internet was commercialized in the early '90's.... it was a good thing. And now even companies that were for Net Neutrality are a little nervous with the new (rather old) FCC rules.
The only thing I want it more competition at the last mile. This FCC ruling doesn't help that. I read that the other FCC rule that was voted on did allow other companies to use local telcom poles in cities, but local city governments are still big blockers. Choice, not the FCC, can prevent the issue of controlling content. I would much rather see focus on that rather than the FCC stepping in.
I'm happy that Google is one of the companies making a difference there. Instead of just whining about it, they put their money where their mouth is and are rolling out city-wide fiber.
kch50428
Well-known member
FCC Cites Groups Funded by Soros, Ford Foundations 206 Times in Internet Rules
Liberal activists bought the FCC rules...
Liberal activists bought the FCC rules...
qbnkelt
Well-known member
I think you're needed here
Net Neutrality Is Challenged! Yay! - Page 6 - BlackBerry Forums at CrackBerry.com
where, by the way, the same CB poster who has been agitating here is also posting....
....there exists an old saying about glass houses....
Thanks for the heads up, but the team appears to be on top of it.
Perhaps shoot me an email next time.
qbnkelt
Well-known member
Yup. The mods in this thread are on top of the one here. You needn't worry about iMore mods.
This thread is the politics subforum where it is understood that things will get heated and certain allowances are made.
This thread is the politics subforum where it is understood that things will get heated and certain allowances are made.
- Status
Similar threads
Trending Posts
-
-
The iMore 20K / 50K Post Challenge - Are you up for it?- Started by Jaguarr40
- Replies: 31K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram