Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Why does Network Neutrality apply? Network Neutrality was originally supposed to be about stopping the big ISPs from discriminating against the Googles, YouTubes, and Vonages of the world, supposedly so that the ISPs' captive or favored services would run better than those third-party services. It's interesting that, suddenly, the P2P user community is invoking Network Neutrality as a defense. That was really not the original intent, in my view. So I cast a skeptical eye at this approach.
It seems to me this is being used as a stalking horse for the copyright debate. Because if you grant that most P2P traffic is illegal transfer of copyrighted material, then you can't really invoke Network Neutrality as a defense. It'd be like saying that the ISPs should not worry about child porn websites. |
|
| You don't see how network neutrality applies when Vuze, which uses BitTorrent to deliver legal video content that competes with Comcast, is impacted by the throttling of upstream p2p delivery? |
|
|
|
 MIRV
join:2000-12-01
Louisville, KY | reply to MyDogHsFleas
Equating child porn and copyright infringement overstates the matter a little. |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:You don't see how network neutrality applies when Vuze, which uses BitTorrent to deliver legal video content that competes with Comcast, is impacted by the throttling of upstream p2p delivery? If Vuze can only work if they use bandwidth they're not paying for, I see that as a bad business model not a Net Neutrality argument.
I can't take a statistically shared service like health insurance, buy a single policy just for myself, and share the coverage with everybody in my neighborhood. This kind of usage would be trying to do the same thing with statistically shared broadband. |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
2 edits | quote:
If Vuze can only work if they use bandwidth they're not paying for, I see that as a bad business model, not a Net Neutrality argument
Technically that would be called a good business model, just not for the folks at the cable industry. It's still a business model, your opinion on its quality as it defines network neutrality is irrelevant.
If this is how the customer is choosing to use their connection and bandwidth, then so be it. If providers don't like it, charge them more. Sharing health insurance is illegal. Last I checked p2p is not. I understand your point but I think it's a stretch as a metaphor. |
|
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth: This kind of usage would be trying to do the same thing with statistically shared broadband. The problem is that the numbers and models that were used to come up with the designs for the "statistically shared bandwidth" are old, outdated and arguably broken in the context of today's internet. How much bandwidth is shared on the network was predicated upon a set of assumptions that are largely dead - small, mostly text web pages; small, text based email; NO streaming of video or audio; etc.
The problem is that the providers are still trying to run their business based on those assumptions... |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:If this is how the customer is choosing to use their connection and bandwidth, then so be it. If providers don't like it, charge them more. That only works when you have more capacity to sell. Frequency space is limited, especially the low frequency space required for upstream channels. 9mbps upstream channels aren't doing DOCSIS 1.x providers any favors either. At some point your only option is to start to scale back on some services.
said by Karl Bode:Sharing health insurance is illegal. Last I checked p2p is not. .. but P2P use is technically a violation of Comcast's AUP, and has been for quite some time. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| reply to factchecker
said by factchecker :
The problem is that the numbers and models that were used to come up with the designs for the "statistically shared bandwidth" are old, outdated and arguably broken in the context of today's internet. The models continue to scale perfectly well as long as it's interactive demand driven traffic. There are natural limits to the amount of content humans can digest, which means the statistical models tend to hold up better than you might expect. Having users spewing crap on the network 24x7, however, breaks nearly every statistical multiplexing model quite nicely. |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to espaeth
quote:
That only works when you have more capacity to sell. Frequency space is limited, especially the low frequency space required for upstream channels. 9mbps upstream channels aren't doing DOCSIS 1.x providers any favors either. At some point your only option is to start to scale back on some services.
You're not trying to tell me that cable providers are incapable of scaling to demand, even by upgrading to complete fiber if necessary?
I could care less if ISPs engage in some traffic shaping to keep things neat and tidy. My only concern is that it's made transparent to the user so they can compare services intelligently when shopping for a connection. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by Karl Bode:You're not trying to tell me that cable providers are incapable of scaling to demand, even by upgrading to complete fiber if necessary? I should have said they can't cost effectively add more bandwidth to sell. Let's face it, most consumers just want max(bandwidth) at min(price). Things like DOCSIS 3.0 deployments are a better place for MSOs to sink their money, the benefits show up on both the video and HSI side of the equation. Doing extensive node splits and fiber buildout just for HSI use isn't really compatible with the current pricing model. Look at Verizon, the only reason they're doing the fiber deployments is so they can get their foot into the video distribution game. FiOS as a Phone/HSI only service would be a complete disaster financially.
Given a lack of enthusiasm of the customer base to pay more, you're pretty much stuck with getting upgrades whenever your provider is damn good and ready. |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:You don't see how network neutrality applies when Vuze, which uses BitTorrent to deliver legal video content that competes with Comcast, is impacted by the throttling of upstream p2p delivery? I hadn't heard of Vuze, I'm glad to learn new things.
Here's a related story. Vuze has filed a petition with the FCC to stop Comcast from slowing BitTorrent traffic.
Just quickly reading Vuze's Rules and Policies, they prohibit copyright-infringing material (and also porn). But they use the open BitTorrent client.
I hve two thoughts:
1) Vuze should just strike a deal with ISPs so that their streams won't be throttled. Using the FCC to pressure them under Network Neutrality seems inappropriate.
2) Technically, they've made it tough by using the open BitTorrent client. How is Comcast supposed to tell the difference between Vuze BitTorrent traffic and copyright-infringing file sharing traffic? |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to MIRV
said by MIRV:Equating child porn and copyright infringement overstates the matter a little. Duh. It was an example, overstated for effect.
The main point I was trying to make was the following: it's not valid to say that ISPs should NEVER care about the content flowing over their connections. And if you allow that child porn is an exception, how is copyright-infringing content different, except perhaps in degree of severity of the crime? |
|
