Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to hottboiinnc
Re: Net Neutrality advocate.
hottboiinnc
If you have not noticed most of the ISPs are either capping now or have already been running test markets to see how to actually do it.
The reality is that monthly caps do nothing to address congestion issues, for pure HSI systems they do nothing(vs video concerns). As has been pointed out already, a true proticol agnostic QOS system used during peak time only, does address the congestion problem. The throttling should only be used in the short term (until network upgrades can be done). |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
 ·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| so you think you should have full run of your ISPs network and little Johnny next door should be able to run P2P full speed all day all night and make your internet suffer? or how about the server farm down the street using a residential connection instead of paying for a business connection? |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| hottboiinnc
That is not even close to what I said. What I said was that as long as a user is not causing congestion (downloading during peak hours) they should be able to download as much as they want. Since most commercial bandwidth is sold by the 95th percentile method(basically by peak Mbps) it costs the ISP nothing extra. No, the ISP's TOS already covers the server farm(reselling your connection). On top of that, the server's peak times would likely be the same as the ISPs peak times, so they would still be hit by the throttle. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to Lazlow
said by Lazlow  :hottboiinnc The throttling should only be used in the short term (until network upgrades can be done). If they get done since once throttling gets introduced, the need to do anything such as make network upgrades becomes a non-issue because there is no preceived need on the ISP's part to do it (ie: Throttling has "fixed" the problem). They can keep ripping off the customer without delivering what they are being paid for. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit | RARPSL
I agree that it is a slippery slope that will have to be watched closely, that is why I added the short term part.
You are aware that they are already throttling? |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to RARPSL
I call BS on the "ISPs won't upgrade their networks, they'll implement caps instead" argument? What has been the ISPs' motivation to date for upgrading their infrastructure? |
|
DJMASACRE
join:2008-05-27
Nepean, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc :so you think you should have full run of your ISPs network and little Johnny next door should be able to run P2P full speed all day all night and make your internet suffer? or how about the server farm down the street using a residential connection instead of paying for a business connection? Yes because that is bullshit . p2p users dont make your "internet suffer" get it through your head. This is just what the ISPs want you to think to make it seem ok . Do your research . |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to Lazlow
said by Lazlow :RARPSL I agree that it is a slippery slope that will have to be watched closely, that is why I added the short term part. You are aware that they are already throttling? Throttling is a Bandaid not a Fix. So long as they go the route of Throttling, they reduce (or eliminate) the pressure to actually fix the problem (ie: By doing needed network upgrades). Since Throttling is a minimal cost option (and they have a captive set of customers due to being the exclusive cable provider in the area) they have no incentive to actually spend money to do network upgrades - Which is not to say that they will not use some petty cash to SEEM to be doing something, but only pointing out that without the Throttling Option, there would be a more urgent need to actually do something to fix the problem. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to Lazlow
how do you figure it would cost them nothing more to give you full non-peak bandwidth? everyone would save everything to that point and max the connection out. By giving a full hard cap it actually reduces their cost in bandwidth and allows them to put that extra money back in to the network.
If they were really smart though all of the cable companies would peer together and reduce their costs that way. Especially since ATDN is peered with several companies including media. Comcast would save $$$$ by sending that traffic to RR's network. and RR would save $$ on their backend by sending email directed to Comcast customers direct to them. Wouldn't have to offload anything to L3 or anyone else.
And by the way i know how most bandwidth is purchased. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to DJMASACRE
No P2P can slow your connection down. It sucks bandwidth from your actual pipe to the backbone.
It does show on cable and it would show on DSL back at the DSLAM. Since BOTH connections ARE SHARED you would see it. Maybe on DSL not on the speed test between you and the DSLAM/CO/RT you would see it once it hits the net as the actual ATM line would be filling up. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to RARPSL
You are getting what you paid for even if they are throttling and capping. Why you have only paid for access to THEIR network NOT to the Internet. They just give you access to the Internet, its just an added bonus you paid for. Their network their right to throttle and or cap as they wish.
Instead people on here sit and cry and whine when they don't get their way. |
|
nonpeak
@emaildl.com
| reply to hottboiinnc
If everyone saved until that point wouldn't that make that the new peak time? If everyone maxes out a connection it seems to me that would disqualify it for non-peak.
Providing a hard cap may slightly reduce their total bandwidth usage over a period of time but by their own admission only 2% of users would even reach said cap. I don't see them going much over it (using comcast's cap as an example). And they are companies, don't be so naive as to think they'll invest extra money into their infrastructure. Extra money mostly goes to employees (higher ups) or REQUIRED upgrades to keep up with competition. |
|
tired
@emaildl.com
| reply to hottboiinnc
Give me a break. You expect us to believe that everyone is really just paying for access to their individual networks (which of course aren't intermeshed) and the ISPs are being generous by allowing us onto the rest of the internet?
They would be out of business if they didn't "allow us" onto the internet. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to hottboiinnc
hottboiinnc
If you know how they buy their bandwidth, you would know that it is by the 95th percentile method(most commercial bandwidth is sold this way). The 95th percentile method(google 95th percentile bandwidth) charges based on PEAK bandwidth and not total GB. Since downloading during off peak hours by definition occurs during non peak times, there is no additional transit costs. Since all the hardware has to be there to handle peak traffic hours, there are no additional hardware costs either. So how does downloading during off peak hours cost the ISP anything (on the HSI side)? It doesn't. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| hottboinnc
"you have only paid for access to THEIR network NOT to the Internet."
Are you absolutely nuts? No one is paying for access for anything on an ISPs network. They are paying for access to the INTERNET. What is there on your ISP's network that you are willing to pay $50+ a month for? Essentially nothing. We are paying for access to the internet and the untold resources that it provides. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc : Why you have only paid for access to THEIR network NOT to the Internet. Sorry they are called ISPs. Internet Service Providers. NOT NSPs
Show me where it says NETWORK access. Everything on this page talks about INTERNET.
»www.charter.com/Visitors/Product···nuItem=3
Please continue to show your ignorance. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to Lazlow
No you pay to ACCESS THE PROVIDERS network who happens to be connected to the Internet. They do NOT have to give you the Internet. They can give you a Portal the same as AOL did and thats it. Will you take it most likely not. But you only pay to access their line, just one of the perks you get in return is the WWW.
And i doubt everyone pays $50+ per month. My brother in CA pays $35 on DSL and $30 per month on Comcast. I pay $44 for Buckeye Cable in my area. My aunt pays $35 per month with RoadRunner on the TWC side. My father pays $30 with RoadRunner on TWC side. $50 per month always? NO! Oh i also have grandparents who pay Comcast $44 for internet. I don't see $50 anywhere in those numbers do you?
And again- you pay the provider access to THEIR network. Not to the Internet. They built their network, they manage their network, they can do with it what they want. If you don't like it, build one yourself and compete. and we'll see how fast your network become's the "customers internet" |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to nonpeak
you don't count Boost as an upgrade? Wifi from Cablevision? SDV by cable companies, DOCSIS 2.0 that Adelphia put their entire network on instead of 1.0 or 1.1?
My cable provider has 2.0 and 3.0 coming out within the next year. Those are upgrades. Also look at speed that is not being released those are upgrades. New modems are upgrades. Don't forget your tech support that is sometimes based in your area.
Not all companies take the profit and give bonuses and not all companies have "competition" especially Ohio. WOOO 1.5Meg dsl compared to 8meg cable? Who are you really going to pick? or 12meg cable compared-uncapped unthrottled compared to 1.5meg DSL. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to BF69
They may provide the Internet over the network THEY OWN but do not have to give you access to it. AOL was considered and still is an ISP but they provided NETWORK access.
Same can be with cable or DSL. Just because a page says they give you access to the internet does not mean they have to if they change their mind at a later date. You pay to access the network and lease that line, they say what you get and how much of it you get.
If you don't like it don't do business with them, how how about go build your own network. |
|
Geowil_loggedoff
@cox.net
| i have to aggree with everyone else on this.
you are not getting access to the ISP's network, you or getting access to the internet over their equipment (rt's co' and routers, switches, all that networky stuff) and not to their network.
Routers only route traffic, they do not serve as a true network server, they just direct the traffic, like a stop light.
We do not pay for access to the ISP's servers, which is where the network really is, so in keeping with the traffic light metaphor,
what you're suggesting is that we pay for access tot he control boxes to the traffic lights.
We dont, all we pay for is marginally unfettered access to the net.
Now, Web Hosts are a different story, but that's not what this discussion is about, but Web Hosts are a perfect example of what you think an Isp is. |
|
