dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-04-23 16:20:11: After Verizon managed to defeat the FCC's already fairly wimpy net neutrality rules in court earlier this year, the FCC stated they wouldn't try to reclassify ISPs under common carriers, but would try to craft new rules based on some of the same shak.. ..



Probitas

@teksavvy.com

1 recommendation

not a good sign

I don't think I like the idea of paying for preferential treatment with or without consent, shouldn't ISPs treat all their customers equally? They already treat business class different from residential, what more do they need?



MDA

join:2013-09-10
Minneapolis, MN
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

Its all paved by isps. The 1996 telecommunications act made them what they are today. Deregulated and loose cannoned as hell. It's an adult figure (the FCC) getting overwhelmed by the cool bully kids (ISPs) where the adult has no knowledge of what's really going on and the cool bullies are so ahead of the game, they are the ones making the rules.

Quit with the American dream of fame and fortune, Isp CEO's. You are ruining it for everyone else.



JasonOD

@comcast.net

-1 recommendation

reply to Probitas

How about they get the the ability to manage their network as they see fit?

In this day and age where content sites can fire a literal tsunami of bandwidth at ISP's, can they at least be allowed to use their own discretion to ensure a reliable network for their user base. Yes, this may include caps, yes it may include higher access costs, and yes it may include traffic management or even, gasp, reaching out to content players for a little help.

Not saying any or all those tools would be used by ISP's. But can we at least agree to not outlaw them and in the process destroy potential avenues of finding ways to make the internet a more positive experience for end users?



tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

The proposed rules would ...

... prevent the service providers from blocking or discriminating against specific websites,

If some site is serving spam, DDOS's or other disruptive activity I sure hope MY ISP has the right to "discriminate" based on content, if it is deliberately economic carpet bombing with the apparent intent to limit the ISP's ability to serve MOST of their customer base I expect them to block it and announce it.



mixdup

join:2003-06-28
Calera, AL
Reviews:
·Charter

5 recommendations

reply to JasonOD

Re: not a good sign

If they can't sustain 100mbps worth of traffic, they don't need to sell 100mbps tiers.

You manage the network by managing the size of the pipe to the user's house. Not by overselling and overpromising and then letting it crumble when people *gasp* expect to use the network they paid for.



battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

Careful...

Don't wish too hard. Things like filtering spam and denial of service attacks could end up being neutrality violations.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.



MxxCon

join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY

1 recommendation

Welcome to the dial-up world of tomorrow!

With this rule now every ISP will have incentive to do the same shit as Comcast did with Netflix.
Every website will now have shit performance until that website pays up.

This is the best government money can buy! Pathetic.
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: signature can not exceed 20GB]



KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

1 recommendation

Sure, we can't openly BLOCK competition....

....we can just openly BLOCK competition by making sure that your route to their services is over-saturated, never upgrade and uses nebulous routing.

So, yes, we can block competition. This is `Murica!
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini



KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

2 recommendations

I'll just drop this here. Fiore comes through again....

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=0782P6m5cX0

jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA
reply to JasonOD

Re: not a good sign

Well, when you put it like that, it sounds so reasonable. LOL
Poor little broke ISPs....


sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to JasonOD

"A more positive experience"? Are you nuts?

Without offering any technical or financial justification, ISPs want to control what you can or can't access on the Internet. You think limiting the application and utility of the Internet for greater corporate profits could in any way help end users?


sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to battleop

Re: Careful...

No one in the entire field of network management has ever proposed preventing the blockade of purely malicious content on the Internet. No one is that fracking stupid. Your attempt at an utterly inane boogeyman is frankly disgusting.



Probitas

@teksavvy.com
reply to mixdup

Re: not a good sign

True dat ^^

Airlines get into trouble for over selling seats, this is the same issue. If I buy first class and get bumped to coach because they over sold, again, I get pissed, and I get a refund of the difference. If during prime time my ISP can't keep the signal at what I'm being charged for, do I see a refund .... NO. And that's not fair, nor proper. It's all on the ISP to keep their network maintained for the services they sell, if they don't dump money into it properly as a responsible business but instead decide to pad expense accounts and give out expensive perks, and pay CEO's millions for figurehead duty on the prow, it's all on them for that mistake, and they really shouldn't have any expectation to make ANYONE else pay for their failures and bad management decisions.



Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09
reply to JasonOD

said by JasonOD :

But can we at least agree to not outlaw them and in the process destroy potential avenues of finding ways to make ISPs even more money by double dipping?

Fixed that for you Jason.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to sonicmerlin

Re: Careful...

said by sonicmerlin:


No one in the entire field of network management has ever proposed preventing the blockade of purely malicious content on the Internet.

But this is about letting political appointees, directing semi-technical bureaucrats (and semi-technical MAY be an exaggeration) to draft proposals for BINDING rules.

I'll let you guess what could go wrong.


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
reply to sonicmerlin

We all know that the FCC and congress critters will make well informed technical decisions.



davidc502

join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN
Reviews:
·TDS

2 recommendations

reply to mixdup

Re: not a good sign

said by mixdup:

If they can't sustain 100mbps worth of traffic, they don't need to sell 100mbps tiers.

You manage the network by managing the size of the pipe to the user's house. Not by overselling and overpromising and then letting it crumble when people *gasp* expect to use the network they paid for.

Speed in maximum Mbps is one thing, but actual throughput is another. With that said, throughput is going to vary, site to site, and download to download as there are many variables involved.

Also, ISP's over-subscribe the lines, and have since the beginning. The chances all users in a area are downloading at the maximum "speed" are slim to none, so even being over-subscribed, the ISP's trend and watch the potential bottle-necks, so they can plan to scale properly in the future. I would say all of the big ISPs plan accordingly even with over-subscriptions.


mixdup

join:2003-06-28
Calera, AL
Reviews:
·Charter

said by davidc502:

said by mixdup:

If they can't sustain 100mbps worth of traffic, they don't need to sell 100mbps tiers.

You manage the network by managing the size of the pipe to the user's house. Not by overselling and overpromising and then letting it crumble when people *gasp* expect to use the network they paid for.

Speed in maximum Mbps is one thing, but actual throughput is another. With that said, throughput is going to vary, site to site, and download to download as there are many variables involved.

Also, ISP's over-subscribe the lines, and have since the beginning. The chances all users in a area are downloading at the maximum "speed" are slim to none, so even being over-subscribed, the ISP's trend and watch the potential bottle-necks, so they can plan to scale properly in the future. I would say all of the big ISPs plan accordingly even with over-subscriptions.

I know how and why ISPs oversell, and I know why it's necessary. Obviously not everyone is going to push 30mbps all the time. But, that's now how they sell the service. That's not how they advertise it. They don't say "best effort" or "sorry we're overselling so this is only some of the time".

My point is they need to oversell less. Drastically overselling their capacity and then complaining when people use the service is just being assholes.

ITGeeks

join:2014-04-20
Cleveland, OH
reply to Probitas

Overselling is how company's make their money and airlines do not get in trouble for overselling seats. Its called money. ISPs do it to ensure they make their $$$. They're going to give you 100/100 and only give it to you for $50 per month and nobody else. They would not be able to stay in business.


ITGeeks

join:2014-04-20
Cleveland, OH
reply to mixdup

Terms of Services for the most part do say "best of effort" or speeds are "up to".


ITGeeks

join:2014-04-20
Cleveland, OH
reply to tshirt

Re: The proposed rules would ...

Not when you take the rights away from the ISP/Network Operator. People want "equal" and everything treated "fairly" well that has to get treated equal and fair as well. No blocks. I agree with you though, but if you block one or filter one, you gotta do it equal. After all that's how Comcast ended up with hard caps. You had a few people on DSLR that raised hell about the caps and tried to sue for a hard number. Well they all got one and then was still pissed off. They got what they wanted but didn't like it.



davidc502

join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN
Reviews:
·TDS
reply to mixdup

Re: not a good sign

said by mixdup:

My point is they need to oversell less. Drastically overselling their capacity and then complaining when people use the service is just being assholes.

I'll continue to play devils advocate by showing you this message from Xfinity..........

"With XFINITY, you can enjoy lightning-fast download speeds. However, actual speeds aren't guaranteed since a variety of external factors can affect your Internet experience."

Cheers! And, please enjoy your Xfinity experience.


davidc502

join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN
reply to mixdup

BTW -- I hear what you're saying and I don't disagree.


Coolbrz

join:2002-12-16
Kane, PA
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
reply to JasonOD

said by JasonOD :

How about they get the the ability to manage their network as they see fit?

In this day and age where content sites can fire a literal tsunami of bandwidth at ISP's, can they at least be allowed to use their own discretion to ensure a reliable network for their user base. Yes, this may include caps, yes it may include higher access costs, and yes it may include traffic management or even, gasp, reaching out to content players for a little help.

Not saying any or all those tools would be used by ISP's. But can we at least agree to not outlaw them and in the process destroy potential avenues of finding ways to make the internet a more positive experience for end users?

How bout having the infrastructure to support what ISPs are selling to end users?

Content sites are only firing the bandwidth at the customers that are requesting it.

Ensure a reliable network? How bout they build it reliable in the first place. Then, when they cannot support it, they raise prices on the customers and now want to charge sites for preferential treatment.

Your whole comment is everything that is wrong in this bullshit.

VerizonCynic

join:2006-10-25
Lakewood, CA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

already wrote to all my elected leaders on this

we shall see. This is Govt by Corporations for Corporations (like Mitt said you know Corps are just people after all !!). I cant wait for the Corps in charge of the "tubes" to take on "religious rights" of their leaders after Hobby Lobby case is decided by the Supremes. Then those tubes will really get restricted. I cant wait for my bill from Google which I have to pay as they had to pay verizon twice for access to the tubes. How is this "helping" consumers?

Back to the...past...


ITGeeks

join:2014-04-20
Cleveland, OH
reply to Coolbrz

Re: not a good sign

The networks do support the load. They upgrade and upgrade all the time. The fact of the Internet being oversold and does experience slow downs is how the Internet was designed and has always worked. That is NOT going to change.



mixdup

join:2003-06-28
Calera, AL
Reviews:
·Charter

Well, point to point unicast is a really dumb model for distributing video. If they only applied this to video services? Maybe? But the problem is this will bleed into everything you do online. It's also why traditional cable and satellite will never truly die.


Coolbrz

join:2002-12-16
Kane, PA
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
reply to ITGeeks

No the network does not support the load, hence the need to upgrade all the time as you put it.

As ISPs add more end users, they will eventually need to upgrade their uplinks to support more demand on their peer connections...oh wait, or they will let them run over-saturated and force a content provider into a direct peer situation. Hmmmm

I am not arguing the links being oversold, it happens in every facet of the internet. Traffic gets adjusted accordingly and links are upgraded.

My comment was to the point of the other poster that said this "content sites can fire a literal tsunami of bandwidth at ISP's"

Content sites are doing nothing more than delivering what that ISPs users are requesting. More users, more traffic, uplinks get overloaded, not the link(s) to the ISPs end users.