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
>> <mailto: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
>> <cryptworks@gmail.com <mailto:cryptworks@gmail.com>> 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
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <eric.oyen@icloud.com <mailto:eric.oyen@icloud.com>> 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
>>> <mailto:PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org>
>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>> <http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
>>> <mailto:PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org>
>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>> <http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
>>> <mailto:PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org>
>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>> <http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
>> <mailto:PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org>
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>> <http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
>> <mailto: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
(text/plain)