dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-06-12 09:09:55: Over the years most of you have probably seen this graphic, which tries to show what a non-neutral network looks like -- a world where ISPs charge different amounts for different tiers of access for different content. ..



Kuro

@75.151.50.x

The sad truth

With a little business double speak you could sell Fastlane to a non technical person (the majority of people) with ease. People wont care about this till it is already screwing them.


ITGeeks

join:2014-04-20
Cleveland, OH

Boy who Cried wolf is all this is. Scaring people into believing its going to happen and nobody has any proof of anything. And now since the FCC's "rules" where tossed out anything to do with peering is now a Net Natural issue. Well maybe since my gas company's website was having issues last night, my Provider actually playing with their IPs. I better call the FCC.



nekkidtruth
YISMM
Premium
join:2002-05-20
London, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Rogers Hi-Speed

4 recommendations

This is hardly fear-mongering. This is exactly what is taking place with the deals like the recent Netflix/Comcast/Verizon one. You say there's no proof, yet there it is in plain sight. Just because you choose to ignore it doesn't mean there's no evidence.

The only difference is this is happening to the content providers first. It hasn't really trickled down to the customer just yet. That's only a matter of time if things continue as they have been.
--
Weeeeeee


SunnyD

join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL

2 recommendations

reply to ITGeeks

It's not the boy who cried wolf because it already IS happening.

Examples:
Look at wireless carriers. They do it. (ESPN for example)
Look at Comcast. They do it. (Streampix for example)
Look at certain other ISP's. They do it. (VOD services don't count towards caps for example)

Why are provider-bundled VOIP solutions cap-free and my home rolled VOIP charged against my cap?
Why is Netflix getting double- and triple-dipped by companies like Comcast while their own VOD solutions get a free ride with only a single customer payment?

There is no crying wolf here. The fire has already been started. We're all just waiting for more kindling and someone to fan the flames a bit.


desarollo

join:2011-10-01
Monroe, MI

1 recommendation

reply to ITGeeks

You haven't been paying attention then, it is already happening. Comcast and Verizon let their peering degrade, at the detriment of their own customers, until companies that are NOT direct customers of Comcast and Verizon paid to get it resolved.

Essentially, these two ISPs are selling access to the internet and then turning around and selling access to those customers paying for internet. A decidedly 1970's concept of cable TV.



Flyonthewall

@206.248.154.x

1 recommendation

reply to nekkidtruth

Sure it did. I don't think Netflix increasing the sub fee had nothing to do with having to pay ISPs more money to be able to access the ISP customers who are requesting NETFLIX service over ISP networks.

This is like the game called 'Just the tip'. We know where it goes.



fiosultimate

join:2014-06-09
San Antonio, TX

1 recommendation

reply to SunnyD

Just like the frog in the pot boiling slowly..by the time most people notice,it will be too late...



fg8578

join:2009-04-26
Salem, OR

Internet has never been "neutral"

With respect to net neutrality:

The Internet standard RFC 791 (1981, but still valid and active) includes packet headers for "priority" and "precedence".

RFC 1633 (1994) discusses "preemptable" packets, which are eligible for dropping, and includes this quote (paragraph 3.3):

quote:
So far, we have implicitly assumed that all packets within a flow were equally important. However, in many audio and video streams, some packets are more valuable than others.
RFC 2474 (1998) discusses precedence in greater detail, and includes this quote (paragraph 7.1):
quote:
The primary goal of differentiated services is to allow different levels of service to be provided for traffic streams on a common network infrastructure. A variety of techniques may be used to achieve this, but the end result will be that some packets receive different (e.g., better) service than others.
RFC 2475 (1998) discusses "differentiated" services, and includes this quote (paragraph 1.1):
quote:
Service differentiation is desired to accommodate heterogeneous application requirements and user expectations, and to permit differentiated pricing of Internet service.
RFC 2638 (1999) discusses "differentiated services" in greater detail and includes this quote (paragraph 2.2):
quote:
It is expected that premium traffic would be allocated a small percentage of the total network capacity, but that it would be priced much higher.
USENET Death Penalty:
quote:
On Usenet, the Usenet Death Penalty (or UDP) is a final penalty that may be issued against Internet service providers or single users who produce too much spam or fail to adhere to Usenet standards. Messages that fall under the jurisdiction of a Usenet Death Penalty will be cancelled.
Realtime Blackhole List:
quote:
A DNS-based Blackhole List (DNSBL) or Real-time Blackhole List (RBL) is a list of IP addresses which are most often used to publish the addresses of computers or networks linked to spamming; most mail server software can be configured to reject or flag messages which have been sent from a site listed on one or more such lists. The term "Blackhole List" is sometimes interchanged with the term "blacklist" and "blocklist".
UDP and RBL represent efforts to reduce spam (a positive goal) but which nonetheless do not comport with the Internet meme that "all packets are created equal" and that ISPs should not treat one packet any differently than another packet.

Bottom line: there is no "net neutrality" on the Internet, and the idea that "net neutrality" is a foundational principle "baked into" the very architecture of the Internet is simply wrong.

That's not to say NN isn't a worthy goal. My purpose in posting these references is to remind NN-proponents that NN is a recent creation (by Tim Wu in 2003) and not some sacrosanct principle that has been around since the beginnings of the Internet.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

LOL, are you honestly going to try to pull out RFC's and use them out of context to justify the blatant attempt of human actions to monetize the internet? Well played!

Unfortunately for you, you did no look far enough past your nose. Virtually all of what you post there has 100% to do with a congested network. Which is the ONLY time any modification to the delivery of a packet is/would need to be done. If the network is not congested then the packet will be received and sent within milliseconds and absolutely no prioritization will occur. Are you going to dispute this?

There has always been neutrality on the Internet. That neutrality that you refuse to admit to is that every packet is received and sent as fast as it can be with no regard to it's content, source or destination. If a node is congested, then sure some management could be be implemented per the RFC's whether it is at my computer, on my router, on my ISP network, at their gateway, the gateway to any peers and the very service I am requesting packets from. That is how the protocol was designed and it was designed that way for reliability. Nobody would ever dispute that if they know anything about networking. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality.

I think I will take the opinion of the person(s) that designed the protocol and considered to be the father of the internet over the corporations who's only interest is money to say what they think is neutral and what is not.

Vint Cerf: My fear is that, as written, this bill would do great damage to the Internet as we know it. Enshrining a rule that broadly permits network operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of services and to potentially interfere with others would place broadband operators in control of online activity. Allowing broadband providers to segment their IP offerings and reserve huge amounts of bandwidth for their own services will not give consumers the broadband Internet our country and economy need.
»googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/11/···ity.html

Try again....


fiosultimate

join:2014-06-09
San Antonio, TX
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Internet has never been neutral, just like all people are racist, people are selfish and self centered, that's how we are built, we wanttl succeed and our relatives or friends or race to be successful, so we favor them, stop trying to fight nature and accept it



fg8578

join:2009-04-26
Salem, OR
reply to Skippy25

said by Skippy25:

There has always been neutrality on the Internet.

UDP and RBL have nothing to do with congestion, and they certainly are not "neutral".

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

That is honestly the only thing you are going to rebut of my entire statement? I understand, I guess when I hit you with such hard facts along with such a strong statement by the very father of the internet and co-designer of the very protocol it would be tough to come back from. Take your time, I am here all week.

BTW, I guess you missed the sentence:

said by Skippy25:

Virtually all of what you post there has 100% to do with a congested network.



fg8578

join:2009-04-26
Salem, OR

said by Skippy25:

BTW, I guess you missed the sentence:

said by Skippy25:

Virtually all of what you post there has 100% to do with a congested network.

No I didn't miss it, which is why I asked my question -- you completely ignored UDP and RBL exactly because you cannot square those common practices with Net Neutrality.

RFC 2474, 2475 and 2638 describe differentiated services. Differentiated services exist whether or not a network is congested. The very concept of a "differentiated service" by definition means that some packets are treated differently.

Cobra11M

join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX

sad

the ISP's want this cause they know the American people wont stand for the caps to drop more.. so instead they found another way to increase profits.. the cable companies are gearing up to make as much as the wireless providers... this just wont stand/work... but how many people will be affected by it until something happens? millions!


coryw

join:2013-12-22
Flagstaff, AZ
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
reply to fg8578

Re: Internet has never been "neutral"

Except that they do have to deal with congested networks, particularly the RFC from 1981, when "the Internet" was still heavily influenced by its history as a defense and research network, where the backhaul was truly measured in some number of single or tens of megabits, and certain types of messages were considered more critical.

None of that was designed with the notion that one day we might consider the packets of a new YouTube competitor as "droppable" simply because they haven't paid Comcast for priority carriage, or a service provider being able to charge more or less.

And, QoS is reasonable anyway. I think it's already well known that things like VoIP are going to carry a higher priority than, say, web traffic.

The real issue here is things going from network to network, and the idea of free peering, etc, has been at the core of the idea of the "Internet" (inter-connected set of networks) since the start, and that is the thing that people are worried most about.. (And by extension, what the idea of charging web sites to have priority at the network gateways means for the Internet as a whole.)



maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:3

1 recommendation

I stopped pirating....

I stopped pirating pretty much because of Netflix, Hulu, Amazon. I don't have to watch a show the same day anymore, and the few commercials on Hulu Plus for the new shows are just fine for me.

The only piracy I do, is hard to find movies, or stuff not available in the U.S.....

But if my ISP starts throttling Netflix, Amazon and the likes.... I will probably just pirate the movies again, because then I KNOW I won't get buffering.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"



Mannus
Premium
join:2005-10-25
Fort Wayne, IN
Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS
·Vonage
reply to Flyonthewall

Re: The sad truth

said by Flyonthewall :

Sure it did. I don't think Netflix increasing the sub fee had nothing to do with having to pay ISPs more money to be able to access the ISP customers who are requesting NETFLIX service over ISP networks.

This is like the game called 'Just the tip'. We know where it goes.

Yeah, right up the old wazoo of the end user with no lube.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to fg8578

Re: Internet has never been "neutral"

If the network is not congested then not a single packet will be delayed, sent faster or slower, before or after another. They will simply be sent as fast at the equipment can possibly send them so nothing else matters. Keep in mind that just because TCP/IP is made to do those things that does not make it necessary nor preferred and sometimes that changes when you go from a private network (your home) to a public one (your ISP).

Regardless, I still stand by the co-author of the protocol and the what the father of the internet says over some Salem, OR individual trying to use RFC's to defend the unneeded creation of tolls booths for data.



Goliath2k
Premium
join:2013-12-28
united state
reply to Kuro

Re: The sad truth

"Save $10 Month NOW by switching to our FastLane tier!"

Never mind the fact that in order to use the Internet as you've been using it, you'd probably wind up paying two, if not three times that much.

Microtransactions make big bucks.



Noah Vail
Son made my Avatar
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Bright House

1 recommendation

reply to ITGeeks

said by ITGeeks:

Boy who Cried wolf is all this is.

I remember when people "Cried Worf" that cable companies might start running commercials on the stations people were already paying for.

and when people "Cried Wolf" that the US Gov was spying on the bulk of our Internet traffic.

and when people "Cried Wolf" that ISPs would start demanding $$$$ to provide the non-degraded connections their customers were paying for.

and. . .
--
Campaign contributions influence laws through a process called bribery.


fg8578

join:2009-04-26
Salem, OR
reply to Skippy25

Re: Internet has never been "neutral"

said by Skippy25:

Regardless, I still stand by the co-author of the protocol and the what the father of the internet says over some Salem, OR individual trying to use RFC's to defend the unneeded creation of tolls booths for data.

The standard speaks for itself. And the only one talking sabout toll booths is you. To the extent I mentioned payments at all, I was quoting directly from the standards. So if you have an issue with them, you should take it up with the IETF.
Expand your moderator at work