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

Sat Nov 25 17:18:39 MST 2017

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 at 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 <cryptworks at gmail.com>
> 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 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
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 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/20171125/1d920b86/attachment.html>