Paying for more is fine. But when they can choke down the pipe artificially just to put you in a position to now need to pay for the premium service. So now you ha e to pay more just to get access. On Nov 25, 2017 4:03 PM, "Herminio Hernandez Jr." < herminio.hernandezjr@gmail.com> wrote: > Brian, > > This is why allowing ISPs to sell fast lanes and even tiered services > would not be the end of the world. There a ton of people who do not use > streaming services that would like to opt in to a service that was cheaper > but throttled streaming services and there people who would be happy to pay > more to have better streaming services. In the end more options will > benefit consumers. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 25, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Brian Cluff wrote: > > Here's the real problem with that. I already pay a ton of money so that I > can stream video well. Most people could get away with a much slower, and > cheaper, Internet pipe if it wasn't for stuff like streaming services. > > We used at all pay around $15 to $20 per month for an Internet connection > 15 years ago and it was fine. Now we all regularly pay around $100 give or > take for a faster connection so that our netflix comes over at decent > quality.... Ultimately Netflix doesn't cost $8 a month, it cost $108 > dollars a month, it just so happens that the connection that gives us > Netflix also gives us some other useful services. > > Now the network providers that are getting the lions share of the money so > that we can get these streaming services want a piece of the pie of every > service that has managed to be successful on the Internet... From services > I might add that make the network providers service worth getting in the > first place. The network providers play it like we would all have these > expensive connections no matter what and that all the services that make > their network connect worth having in the first place is a drain on their > service that would be better off without netflix, hulu, youtube, > facebook... etc...etc... In my view it's the other way around and they > should be hoping and praying that those services don't figure out how to > cut them out of the picture... something that I'll bet they figure out how > to do if it's suddenly a lot more expensive to be in business because of > the current way they do things. > > For a lot of people, if they weren't getting netflix they could quite > likely get away with no Internet connection at all, or one that cost less > than $20 a month so that they could check their email. > > And the answer to who is going to pay for it is, the end user aka you and > me. Last I checked content providers and ISPs don't print money, so they > have no choice but to pass the costs onto the end user. > > Brian Cluff > > On 11/25/2017 02:45 PM, Eric Oyen wrote: > > well, considering that the top multinational multimedia cartels own 90% of > the news information outlets these days, that situation is already > happening. what we need is a specified statement like this: > all internet services providers are required to allow competing content to > cross to the end user without censorship (that is, they cannot block it). > However, they might be allowed to charge a "reasonable fee" to allow it > through. > > now, the question becomes, who bears the cost of that fee? the content > provider, the ISP or the end user? and yes, double dipping would definitely > not be allowed. > > now, the old tape cassette fee model worked good for years. the content > providers got a small percentage on each cassette sold and users got to > tape their favorite songs. why not the same thing here: charge a small > percentage (like 1%) to the end user on a monthly basis to be paid into a > general fund for all content providers? that 1% is small considering > individual users, but adds up fast when you consider the number of > customers each ISP/broadband provider has. in my case, that would be about > 80 cents on my cable bill. doesn't seem like a lot, doesn't it? > > -eric > from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Think tank operations > Dept. > > On Nov 25, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Michael Butash wrote: > > Most network devices these days, including wireless, firewalls, as well as > you standard routers and switches tend to do layer 4 and up application > inspection, primarily for creating policies like "limit youtube|netflix to > 1mbps", "block peer to peer traffic", and "limit google to safe search > only" that muck with your content when at work, school, anywhere you have > an network admin like Herminio or I trying to keep users from doing things > to break the network, or at least them all at once doing so. > > Early on, Netflix and Youtube grew to be behemoth network hogs for > providers, so rather than let storming elephants trample the village, they > would "queue" that traffic so it wouldn't overrun more important things, > like normal web browsing and more perceptible use cases (still likely do). > As Stephen said, they eventually got smarter, or Netflix did, to peer > directly with the mega providers, and put local content distribution nodes > directly into them on 100gb switches so they didn't have to slaughter your > traffic (and take the bad press eventually in being the internet cop ala > comcast). > > Is this really what the net neutrality debate is about anymore? No, > politicians don't care about internet speeds, it's really about media > consolidation occurring that you will be pretty much left with att, > comcast, and news corp for all television, internet, phone, and news in > general. What could go wrong, other than enabling maniacal billionaires to > buy their way into the white house. > > -mb > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Herminio Hernandez Jr. < > herminio.hernandezjr@gmail.com> wrote: > >> They are very related Network QoS exists because there are limits in how >> much networking gear transmits packets and frames. There is a lot more to >> it than just writing the policy. There is a cost to engineer that out. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Nov 24, 2017, at 12:59 PM, Stephen Partington >> wrote: >> >> It is not that simple in my mind. Network QoS is very different then the >> possibility of the customers pay extra for additional services. >> >> Besides Netflix has cache devices that can and are frequently in local is >> Datacenters to alleviate latency and Bw issues. >> >> And given the current fcc chairs attitude I am really skeptical. >> >> On Nov 24, 2017 12:31 PM, "Herminio Hernandez, Jr." < >> herminio.hernandezjr@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I will start with some thoughts on why I find the NN debate troubling. >>> First there is a technical misunderstanding. NN is built on the idea that >>> ISPs should treat all traffic equally. This concept is simply unrealistic. >>> Bandwidth is a limited resource there is only so much data that a Ethernet >>> port can transmit and receive. Also things like MTU size, latency, jitter >>> all impact the reliable transmission of data which bring me to my other >>> point. Not all traffic is the same. There are night and day differences >>> between TCP and UDP traffic. For example UDP (which is what most voice and >>> video is) is faster than TCP. The drawback to this is that UDP does not >>> have the recovery features that TCP has in case of packet loss (ie sequence >>> number and acknowledgment packets). There UDP applications are more prone >>> to suffer when latency is high or links get saturated. To overcome this >>> network engineer implement prioritization and traffic shaping to ensure >>> these services are not impacted. >>> >>> As more content is consumed such as 4K video on the internet, the need >>> for traffic shaping will only increase. Netflix already has the ability to >>> push 100Gbps from their servers. That is a ton of data that needs to be >>> prioritized by ISPs. This is not free there are serious costs involved in >>> man hours and infrastructure. Someone needs to bear that cost. This is why >>> I am not opposed to fast lanes. If Netflix is going to have ISPs ensure all >>> of the massive amounts to data are push is delivered efficiently, then the >>> ISPs should be free to charge a premium for this service. Netflix does not >>> want to bear this cost, hense their support for Net Neutrality. They want >>> the ISPs to bear the cost, but then result of that is we bear the cost via >>> data caps. >>> >>> When you strip away all the slogans it all comes down to money and >>> control. Data will be traffic shaped it is just who decides how unelected >>> government bureaucrats pushing some public policy or market forces. >>> >>> Something else to consider a lot not all but a lot of the very same >>> people who cry that the end of Net Neutrality will be end of free speech >>> (no more free and open internet) have no issue saying Twiiter, Facebook, >>> and Google (since they are 'private companies') have the right demonetize, >>> obscure, or even ban individuals who express ideas that other deem >>> "offensive". How is that promoting a "Free and Open Internet"? >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Eric Oyen >>> wrote: >>> >>>> well, as someone else suggested, a new thread. >>>> >>>> so, shall we start the discussion? >>>> >>>> ok, as mentioned, bandwidth is a limited resource. the question is How >>>> limited? >>>> >>>> Then there is the question: can an ISP curtail certain types of traffic >>>> (null route it, delay it, other bandwidth shaping routines)? How far can >>>> they go? >>>> >>>> What really is net neutrality? >>>> >>>> lastly, what part does the FCC play, or should they? >>>> >>>> so, any thoughts on the above questions? >>>> >>>> -eric >>>> from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, you got questions, we >>>> got answers Dept. >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------- >>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>> >> --------------------------------------------------- >> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------- >> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >> > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > > > > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >