You are talking about the same industry that allowed us west to get away with almost 15 years of shinanegans. On Nov 25, 2017 4:26 PM, "Herminio Hernandez Jr." < herminio.hernandezjr@gmail.com> wrote: > Stephen pre 2015 there were avenues in place where you can appeal to if > you feel ISPs are screwing you. I think AT&T at the time tried screw over > FaceTime users they all complained and pressured them to back off. There > was no need for a massive overhaul in how the internet was managed. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 25, 2017, at 4:12 PM, Stephen Partington > wrote: > > 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 >> > --------------------------------------------------- > 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 >