new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

Sat Nov 25 16:12:18 MST 2017

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 at 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 <brian at snaptek.com> 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at lists.phxlinux.org
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.phxlinux.org/pipermail/plug-discuss/attachments/20171125/2fef2b38/attachment.html>