Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » Network Neutrality Debate Was, Still Is, About Greed » Metering is a Scare Tactic
Search Topic:
Share Topic:
RSS topic:
toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Post a:
Post a:
« aGREED!  
page: 1 · 2
AuthorAll Replies

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20


3 edits
reply to Bill Dollar
Re: Metering is a Scare Tactic

No, it's the only way they CAN manage their networks now. Believe it or not, people have been screaming for this and been demanding it.. now they get it and don't like it.

Network neutrality folks ARE in fact for it.. it's kinda like making a deal with the devil. The NN people didn't think this through. There is NO way anyone is going to force the ISPs to operate flat.. they need to make a profit. NN people would all but, and damn near, kill ISPs.

NN people want the internet as fast as can be, always upgraded, not managed, and anything goes... they don't say it all at the same time, but when you take all their arguments, put them together, and you have the largest group of idiots on the planet.

Sorry to say, but NN people are socialists BECAUSE of how they want things to operate. They WANT unfettered access at a small, and I do mean, small price.

The NN people are getting what they want.. hands off internet.. but that comes with caps or meters. You can't have it all.


karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..

wow, more 'talking points' from a fat republican. Why am I not suprised.
Net Neutrality is NOT about unlimited speeds. Net Neutrality is about GETTING WHAT YOU PAY FOR. Is it the customers fault if comcast is overselling their network by a factor of 40? NO. If comcast can only provide a steady 1mb/sec download, and 256kb/sec upload per node, THEN THAT'S WHAT THEY SHOULD SELL. I don't care how fast comcrap claims to be. I WILL USE what I am promised, period. If they can't provide what they are advertising, then they should be punished.

What if honda advertised their civic as getting 160mpg, and the real world it only got 10mpg. Would you stand by and accept that? Of course not. So why does comcast get to advertise 'always on' speeds of 10mb/sec, when the reality is they can only provide 'always on' speeds of 1mb/sec? Guess people wouldn't be willing to shell out $60.00/month for 1mb/sec, so they LIE.

We don't want caps. We don't want meters. We WANT WHAT THEY ARE ADVERTISING.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity!

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20


2 edits
I'm not a republican... get your facts straight.

And please, where did comcast advertise "always on speed"? If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know what "always on" refers to. I suppose you recall the day of "always on" and "always available" broadband connections don't you? Always on meas just that.. always available meant you clicked an icon to "connect" your broadband, same as how mobile BB works today. They both have their speeds, however, their connection types do not dictate speed.

Further, they also never told you that you could use the service always on 24/7. They DID tell you that the service 1) could be managed and 2) that it was for typical residential use. Is it typical for residential use to be always on and used wide open? No!

I'm sorry that the AUP/TOS actually requires people to apply and use logic and that noodle between one's ears. I guess that's what people get for assuming. Maybe people will learn and wake up as to what happens when people want everything dictated to them.. oh wait.. you're getting it now!

Want to tango?


Bill Dollar

@verizon.net

reply to fiberguy
I'm not sure why you are being so hostile; perhaps that's just a function of message board behavior.

You seem smart enough to realize that there are differences in the "metering" trial balloons floated by TW, vs. the practice of high bandwidth limits followed by throttling or overage charges. My point was the former would actually hurt the ISPs bottom line, while the latter is actually a more reasonable approach to the problem of congestion caused by the minority of users during a few hours of each day.

You grossly mischaracterize the positions of NN advocates, which isn't very productive. You also seem to be unaware that the Union's position on the issue of NN is opposed. The union believes in reasonable network management.

My point in posting was to highlight the fact that ISPs will always do what's good for the bottom line, and TW or Frontier style low-cap metering will not be a winner for them financially. They of course have the right to charge whatever they like, but I'm proffering that they will adopt a practice that is more in line with what comcast has leaked, or what other small cable operators do (small-time window limits, with temporary throttling).

And as to your point below comparing bandwidth to gas or electricity. You should be aware that those are industries where the marginal costs are not close to zero, unlike the data industry. It doesn't make economic sense for gas or electricity to be sold like bandwidth or cell minutes.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20


1 edit
Actually, I will admit that I DID mis-read something you said in your post which when re-reading it does make me see your post differently. (Sorry)

But, I do stand on my view of NN advocate's position. Indirectly, with out realizing it, they ARE asking for what they are getting.

Pulled this part of my post to rethink it.. it was deep and I don't think I gave it enough thought.. I'll rethink it and probably post it again later.


What

@windstream.net
reply to fiberguy
They are operating flat, and making huge profits doing it. I don't see your point. Are you claiming that ISP are selling at or below cost now?


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype


1 edit
reply to fiberguy
You are confusing a lack of opposition for advocacy. Generally, pay-by-the-byte has nothing to do with Network Neutrality, so Network Neutrality groups don't oppose it. But none of us want it.

My canned explanation of Network Neutrality:
Network Neutrality is the name given to a set of guiding principles designed to continue the Internet's interoperable, non-discriminatory, end-to-end processing tradition. The Internet (the routing and forwarding network) was originally neutral because it generally lacked any information or capability that would make it otherwise, and since "more speed" was the demand, improved hardware capabilities over time was usually spent delivering more speed (not more functionality like DPI).

In recent years, network operators and network hardware manufacturers have been focusing less on speed improvements and more on services. As one might expect with any new and powerful technology, some of these uses are genuinely useful while others tend to be quite questionable and immature.

In short, today's Network Neutrality efforts seem focused on maintaining the free, open, and level playing field that the Internet originally created.
Now, that said, those who have any sense of history remember what happened when AOL went flat-rate. It tipped the pot, all ISPs went flat-rate, and the Internet exploded in popularity, freedom, and investment.

Nobody in the Network Neutrality movement (I don't like to call it a movement, because it's more of a preservation effort) is against network management. The networks have always been managed. In fact, it's the operator mismanaging his network that makes it possible -- if true -- for 5% of its users to commandeer 95% of the bandwidth. That is a simple resource allocation management problem -- that ISP needs fewer users splitting the bandwidth or more bandwidth to split. But what did Comcast do? It RAISED the uplink speeds on its modems by THREE TIMES in the past year without also tripling the bandwidth that they shared! That's network mis-management.

We're against allowing an ISP to use DPI to decide what applications we can and cannot use. The Internet became this open, democratic, free-market, conveyance of liberty without the assistance of DPI. Networking hardware manufacturers now introduce it as "necessary" for "network management" and it is simply not true.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype


2 edits
reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx See Profile :

wow, more 'talking points' from a fat republican. Why am I not suprised.
And FWIW, you can consider me a Republican (I'm a fiscal conservative and a free-marketer -- I traded my GOP card for a Libertarian one a few years back when the party decided to hate everyone who wasn't a straight white male).

Network Neutrality isn't about Republican or Democrat, Left or Right, Conservative or Liberal. It's about recognizing the tremendous good that the Internet has brought to all of us and doing what we ought to do to maintain that resource for generations to come.

said by karlmarx See Profile :

We don't want caps. We don't want meters. We WANT WHAT THEY ARE ADVERTISING.
Amen, brother!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...

NGOwner

join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS

reply to funchords
said by funchords See Profile :

In fact, it's the operator mismanaging his network that makes it possible -- if true -- for 5% of its users to commandeer 95% of the bandwidth. That is a simple resource allocation management problem -- that ISP needs fewer users splitting the bandwidth or more bandwidth to split.
I think there is a third option. I'd say that the operator should manage the user in this case. Tweak the 5% causing the problem.

[NG]Owner


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq

reply to funchords
said by funchords See Profile :

But what did Comcast do? It RAISED the uplink speeds on its modems by THREE TIMES in the past year without also tripling the bandwidth that they shared! That's network mis-management.
They also changed the upstream modulation in the vast majority of their markets which increased upstream shared capacity from 9mbps to 27mbps channels.

Details.


karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..

reply to fiberguy
Ok, I'll play. You agree that they advertise ALWAYS ON, correct? That's still in use today. So, the fact that it's 'always on', means that I can use it at 2:00 in the afteroon, and I can use it a 4:00 AM the next morning. I mean, it's ALWAYS ON, right? So, lets say I'm an evil pirate (I may just be one). If I want to PIRATE something big, say, "The X-Files Seasons 1-8", which is a 70GB torrent, well, that's going to take a long time. But I'm not worried, because my connection is 'Always On'. Thus, at 6Mb/sec, It will take about 30 hours to download it. Since my connection doesn't turn off, I start it at noon, and by 6:00 PM the next day, it's done! Always on.

Now, is that 'typical residential use'. Maybe, maybe not. Please show me the document that clearly states what 'typical residential use' is, and I'll follow it. Oh, wait, you CAN'T, because 'typical residental use', is a VAGUE and UNDEFINED philosophy.

Look at it this way. If my node has 150Mb/sec, and there are 200 people on it, then the SOLUTION is very simple. ONLY SELL 1mb/sec! Thus, I CANNOT SATURATE THE NETWORK. PERIOD. If I only get 1mb/sec, then I can not use more that .60% of the total bandwidth of the node in a single month! That's not too hard for you to understand is it?

But NO, they go and advertise 16mb/sec, when they FULL WELL KNOW the node cannot support that. THAT is why people are pissed. They aren't pissed because it's 'too slow', let's be honest, 1mb/sec is PLENTY fast for 'web browsing' and 'e-mails'. They are pissed because the ADVERTISING doesn't match the PRODUCT they are selling.

The only thing I am advocating is that the cable companies only SELL what they can provide. The simple fact of the matter is that CABLE can't hold a candle next to FIOS. I'm on FIOS, I get 30/15, AND MY NODE CAN SUPPORT IT, even if I use it 7x24x30! Very simple. THAT'S why I got FIOS, not because it's faster (it is), but because it's BETTER.

Comcast should sell 1mb/sec x 256k/sec, because THAT'S WHAT THEY CAN PROVIDE. Oops, guess they will have to lower their prices, A LOT, cause they've spoiled people into thinking that they deserve 16mb/sec for $60.00/month. That's an out and out LIE. I don't DESERVE a 16mb/sec for $60.00/month, but I do deserve a 1mb/sec for $60.00/month. And if I'm on FIOS, well, since it's a much better technology, I deserve 30mb/sec for the same $60.00/month.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity!


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype

reply to NGOwner
said by NGOwner See Profile :

I think there is a third option. I'd say that the operator should manage the user in this case. Tweak the 5% causing the problem.
The 5% don't even know they're the problem. They're just using their computer for all that they know. They don't read DSLReports nor do they understand that their use affects the neighbors. They're sold a tier of service and they use it!

Be that as it may, if an ISP doesn't want to serve a customer any more, or change the deal, the ISP ought to be open about it. Secretly throttling, hoping not to get caught, is not a solution. Quietly changing the Terms of Service boilerplate, hoping the user will keep paying despite degraded service, is not a solution.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype

reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx See Profile :

Comcast should sell 1mb/sec x 256k/sec, because THAT'S WHAT THEY CAN PROVIDE.
I don't know if those are the right numbers, but I agree with the general gist of your message. Truth is, though, that with ~10 Mbps uplinks being shared by up to 125 homes or so (presuming they call subscribe), that number would be 85 kbps or so. If you are advocating to ban all oversubscription or "statistical multiplexing," then I do not think that is wise.

I think it would be fair to sell the service at bandwidths and speeds that the ISP can reliably or confidently hit. I think that "reliably or confidently" means in the 90th percentile.

I still guess as you do -- whatever the 90th percentile numbers would turn out to be, they would probably no longer appear to be competitive with DSL or FIOS and that's why they won't do this and chose to secretly attack P2P instead.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...

Bill03
Premium
join:2007-11-26
Richmond, VA
clubs:

reply to karlmarx
That's not quite how it works. It's not as simple as taking your total available bandwidth and dividing by the desired speed to get the total number of people you can have on a node. It's all about utilization. By your reasoning, if I have an office network with 100 people and they all use computers with Fast Ethernet connections then I need to give them a 10 Gigabit Ethernet pipe to the Internet so they can surf at the maximum speed allowed by their connection. I can promise you FIOS network designers didn't build in enough switches so everyone on each switch had 30 Megs available to them continuously.

You also assume that all 200 of your people are fully utilizing all the available bandwidth. I'm sure they monitor utilization and they augment capacity or reduce the size of the node when necessary.

I've had office networks with small numbers of users and high utilization and large numbers of users with lower utilization.

The "Always On" they mentioned in their advertising (I haven't seen it worded like that lately) referred to the dial-up days. You had to call in to get connected. The cable modems were always connected to the network, hence the always on mention.

It's about how much they use, not how many there are.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20

There is one other thing about the Always on vs always available. I haven't had a chance or the time to tango with my post's original replyer yet. But, he still tried to twist always on to unlimited internet again.

The always on connection was not just marketing. SOME connections, mostly DSL (some cable modems) actually had a dialup broadband service. They have a connection manager software that you had to, well, basically you leased an IP and traffic went through. THAT type of service really doesn't exists outside of mobile broadband any more.

It really is not a marketing ploy.. it's a real term used to distinguish the two types of connection methods available.


jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:

reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy See Profile :

Further, they also never told you that you could use the service always on 24/7. They DID tell you that the service 1) could be managed and 2) that it was for typical residential use. Is it typical for residential use to be always on and used wide open? No!
Yes, but as you know, the definition of "typical residential use" has been going up and it's not the fault of the residential user that the offerings on the internet have required more and more bandwidth. As Karl notes, ISPs have been making money, so they have no excuse for not improving their networks to handle the coming demand.
--
If they told you wolverines would make good house pets, would you believe them?
-"Planes, Trains & Automobiles"

RJ44

join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN

reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx See Profile :

Look at it this way. If my node has 150Mb/sec, and there are 200 people on it, then the SOLUTION is very simple. ONLY SELL 1mb/sec! Thus, I CANNOT SATURATE THE NETWORK. PERIOD. If I only get 1mb/sec, then I can not use more that .60% of the total bandwidth of the node in a single month! That's not too hard for you to understand is it?
Do you understand how much more expensive bandwidth would be if they didn't oversubscribe, and gave each customer a dedicated, guaranteed amount of bandwidth like you're recommending they do? It sounds like you have no idea. Go price a T1. That's how much dedicated bandwidth costs. I like the oversubscription method (and concurrent pricing) just fine. Your post shows a shocking lack of understanding of economics and network engineering both.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20

reply to jslik
Well, even though use is going up, and I agree with that statement, it still doesn't equate damn near 24/7 wide open use with P2P usage topping the list. Further, that's operating a server - no matter what anyone says. That's NOT typical residential use. Second, around here, Karl can tell people the sky is lavender with green polka dots in color and many would believe it. Just because Karl "The Slanted" News guy says its so, isn't. ISPs ARE making money, yes.. many of them, but who is to say they are not investing? You are aware that Comcast just upgraded the Twin Cities to Docsis 3.0, there are cities in Florida being upgraded as well. The Bay Area just got a MASSIVE rebuilt project. Numerous other cities are getting updates in addition to other projects.

People will see and believe what they want to in absence of the facts for convenience.

In all honesty.. the only two major players I see putting money into anything worth paying attention to is Verizon with FiOS first, then Comcast with Docsis 3.0 second.


NetAdmin
CCNA

join:2008-05-22

reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy See Profile :

Believe it or not, people have been screaming for this and been demanding it.. now they get it and don't like it.
Who are these "people" you are talking about ?
--
---
Eleven years of carrying The Clue Bat...


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype

reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy See Profile :

Further, that's operating a server - no matter what anyone says.
A peer-to-peer application is a node. It is neither client nor server. It's definitive.

Think about what Comcast itself has said. They have repeated indicated that P2P is permitted on their network. And these aren't flunkies -- it's Joe Waz and David Cohen!
said by fiberguy See Profile :

That's NOT typical residential use.
Typical residential use is defined by typical residents, no? Who do you think are running these programs, Real Estate offices?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
-
Forums » Network Neutrality Debate Was, Still Is, About Greed« aGREED!  
page: 1 · 2


Wednesday, 09-Dec 20:02:55 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [198] Sprint Sued For Distracted Driving Death
· [106] AT&T Launching New 24 Mbps U-Verse Tier
· [82] 3G Network Test Says AT&T Is Tops
· [72] Mediacom Unveils 105 Mbps Pricing
· [66] Sprint Poised For A Turnaround?
· [63] WPA Cracker: Test WPA-PSK Networks In 20 Minutes
· [56] AT&T Hints At Usage-Based iPhone Data Pricing
· [51] The Future Of Wi-Fi Is Bright
· [47] Site Leaks Yahoo, Verizon Fed Data Share Pricing
· [44] Microwaving Your Innards Is Not 'Extreme'
Most people now reading
· Is sleeping similar to being dead? [General Questions]
· Cross Server Dungeon Experience [World of Warcraft]
· Man Downloads Child Porn "Accidentally," Faces 20 Years [Security]
· Comcast refused to install 400' feet. [Comcast HSI]
· Adobe Flash Player version 10.0.42.34 [Security]
· ICC strats [World of Warcraft]
· [Rant] Campbell's Soup [Rants, Raves, and Praise]
· Gift Cards on eBay [General Questions]
· ICC Strats??? [World of Warcraft]