HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
Google Public Policy has issued an outright denial of the New York Times article posted earlier today.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Google Denies Net Neutrality Deal
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
RumpleForeSkin
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 228
I would think that it would be true. Google's services require bandwidth. They want to keep their customer base large. The idea of selectively increasing the bandwidth for certain companies and crippling it for others ( which is the real motivations behind Verizon's beef with net neutrality make no mistake, they could care less about your rights to access) is not good for Google's business.
funny how Verizon forget's who actually paid for their network to begin with, and that is the American taxpayer. Sure they have added and changed some things over the years but in the end it's the govt that started the ball rolling.
I will NEVER understand this nations love of corporations. never ever. They are most certainly at the root of the evils facing this nation now.
funny how Verizon forget's who actually paid for their network to begin with, and that is the American taxpayer. Sure they have added and changed some things over the years but in the end it's the govt that started the ball rolling.
I will NEVER understand this nations love of corporations. never ever. They are most certainly at the root of the evils facing this nation now.
KillaChaos
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2008
- Messages
- 351
I heard somewhere that months ago this story was fabricated as some college conspiracy project, and that months later (now) NyTimes picked up on it.
And by somewhere, I mean 4chan's /g/, so salt accordingly.
And by somewhere, I mean 4chan's /g/, so salt accordingly.
Verizon says that individuals who suck up bandwidth should pay more or be capped. Why should corporations be treated differently. I hope somewhere down the road discrimination of usage rears its beautiful head.
And Google does pay more, and I doubt Google uses Verizon as its ISP.
Net neutrality has nothing to do with billing based off of bandwidth usage, but prevents prioritizing based off of endpoint. In other words, if an ISP sells me X amount of bandwidth, I can use that bandwidth however I damn well please. They can't say "well, you can only use X/4 if you go to Netflix, but if you go to Comcast On Demand you can use all X!" <- that is the shit net neutrality aims to prevent.
RumpleForeSkin
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 228
I pay for X amount of bandwidth. If I want to use ALL of it all of the time, I most certainly have the right to. Verizon's beef about heavy users is pure bullshit. If the customer pays for a service than the customer deserves said service. If Verizon can't keep up is that the customer's fault or is it Verizon's? Verizon wants to milk out every cent they can from their customers and STILL take federal funds to subsidize it.
Screw the phone company, how's the old saying go?
"We're the phone company, we don't care because we don't have to"
I think I know what Net neutrality is trying to do, but from a network perspective, I don't understand how it's supposed to work. The network path to my ISP's servers is not the same as the path to Netflix's servers.
If the network path to my ISP's servers gets saturated, they can (relatively) easily increase capacity. They "just" need to run additional lines or upgrade equipment, but they control both sides of the link. Additionally, this will likely impact lots of customer's connections to the internet at large.
If my ISP has established a peering relationship with Netflix and the connection gets saturated; they may be able to send additional traffic through transit arrangements ($$), or they may be able to increase capacity on the link with Netflix (but it will involve negotiations with Netflix about how best to do it (and allocation of cost), as well as the time to get additional lines or upgrade equipment).
If my ISP's transit connection is saturated, they will need to pay their ISPs for more transit bandwidth, or arrange for peering of high traffic destinations. Either way, negotiation will be needed before additional lines or equipment can be ordered.
Netflix themselves may have saturated their outbound bandwidth, or server capacity, in which case my ISP doesn't have the ability to make Netflix run as fast as their Usenet server anyhow.
Does network neutrality mean my ISP supposed to limit bandwidth on connections within their network to the lowest bandwidth connection I can get to any external server? Does that include servers in remote locations running off of ISDN lines or 56k modems?
Well, it sounds like you don't really understand how the internet works, for example your ISP doesn't talk to Netflix directly (unless Netflix is using the same ISP), but that doesn't really matter.
What net neutrality prevents is ISPs *prioritizing* packets based off of endpoint. If Netflix's connection can't handle the load, that is fine. Net neutrality doesn't care about that. What net neutrality says is that an ISP can't say "Hey, you want to connect to Netflix? Well, we're going to cut your bandwidth to Netflix in half". They can't say "Hey Netflix, we're going to make service to you absolutely suck unless you pay us $$$". In other words, all packets must be treated equally (kind of).
Will packets going to a service on the ISPs own network go faster by virtue of less hops? Quite possibly, and that is fine. Net neutrality doesn't care about that. Should ISPs be able to grant you a much faster connection to certain endpoints? No. And I don't mean based off of network load, that's all fine. I mean, they can't say "Here's a 10mbit connection to the internet, but a 50mbit connection to our services".
Was that done on a SNL sketch with Lily Tomlinson or when she did her part in Laugh In.
KnishofDeath
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,090
Basic understanding of internet fail.
My ISP may talk to Netflix directly, if they have a peering arrangement ... I did put an if in there. I don't think it would be unreasonable, either; my ISP already peers with Yahoo and Google in San Jose; it doesn't look like they peer with Netflix yet, but if the bandwidth between my ISP and Netflix is high enough, it's cheaper for both parties to not use transit bandwidth to exchange packets.
I'm not sure why you (and another poster) think I don't know how the internet works, I thought I knew more about it than most people (for example, I'm familiar with the concepts of peering and transit, multihoming, BGP, least cost routing, etc). It may be a little off topic, but I would be happy to find out what I'm missing (PM is fine).
Ok, so with a very simple example. Let's say my ISP is very small, so it only has one connection to the internet and does no peering, so it's 100% transit. Additionally, their servers are in the same location as there internet connection. Let's say they have a ethernet switch with three things attached: the device connected to their internet connection, the device connected to their customers (me!), and one server.
So all of my packets go to their one location, and through that switch. If the switch is operating at the same speed as their internet connection, or if their internet connection has at least as much bandwidth as their connections to their customers, great. If not, do they need to throttle the ethernet connection to their server?
If they don't need to throttle the ethernet connection to their server, can't they just reduce the speed of their internet connection (or add more subscribers and keep it the same, whatever), to make their server have higher available bandwidth than Netflix?
Hop-Scotch
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2010
- Messages
- 954
You're confusing throttling due to stress and the point of net neutrality.
If your ISP has a service like Netflix, and they throttle your connection to Netflix and begin to make it unusable so that you will use their service, that is not being neutral, and is what net neutrality is trying to prevent.
If your ISP has a service like Netflix, and they throttle your connection to Netflix and begin to make it unusable so that you will use their service, that is not being neutral, and is what net neutrality is trying to prevent.
MrGuvernment
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 21,812
You will never understand it because your not a politician who gets kick backs from these companies.
Hop-Scotch
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2010
- Messages
- 954
That has nothing to do with it. If Netflix's servers and bandwidth is stressed, that's Netflix's problem. If your ISP slows your connection to Netflix on their end (and only to Netflix), they aren't being neutral to your choice of options.
Ok... So they can't adversely affect only Netflix. Instead, can they setup peering relationships with companies they like (presumably to reduce their transit needs), and then overly reduce their transit connection? Thus adversely affecting everybody who they haven't peered with, including Netflix (which oops they forgot to peer with).
Bonus points if they sign up with a transit ISP run by a media conglomeration that bullies networks that carry Netflix's traffic through other means (see Cogent's peering struggles)
Bonus points if they sign up with a transit ISP run by a media conglomeration that bullies networks that carry Netflix's traffic through other means (see Cogent's peering struggles)
bigdogchris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 18,707
You absolutely need a net neutrality bill passed because you have no control over who's wires your Internet flows once it leaves your ISP. I would be pissed to pay a big monthly fee for Internet, just to have it slowed down at the first hub it reaches outside of my ISP.
I think toast0 understands basic internet, more than I do,and is wondering that same as I: in what area is VZN is negotiating anything? VZN owns a good bit of physical fiber lines, so does Google and VZN being a major provider of wireless bandwidth. I believe VZN is trying to come to grips with what they are to do when their entire wireless spectrum is being fully saturated and their is no room for expansion. At this point, can the owner of said bandwidth make discretionary decisions on how they deliver this bandwidth.
Example: If VZN OR Google had "only" a 128kbps line connected to four customers paying for 128kbps, could either of them, in order to maximize the benefit of this line, prioritize content? To you and me, the answer is obviously a resounding NO. We operate under the logic that firstly you can't sell more than you can deliver, and secondly that no information can be favored, no matter the circumstances.
***Warning**this may be veering of course, not as internet savvy as I would like to be** Someone mentioned in the original VZN/Google post about HughesNet FAP (Fair Access Policy). This is touching on that dilemma. Cable bandwidth providers are also already doing similar (that is, selling more bandwidth than they can actually provide to each end-user). However, these issues haven't been directly addressed, or have they? I'm wondering if these negotiations have bearing on this.***
Lastly, take a look at Google's search engine. ISPs and IXs can cache something as simple as DNS or even a webpage. In the instance of Google's homepage, being as the actual page rarely changes, they can cache it with a longer TTL period. At what point does Net Neutrality become applicable? I don't think they their arguing preferential treatment of content, but rather, "statistically" prioritizing the most popular content, of which, there is little way to maintain proper oversight by the govt.
Example: If VZN OR Google had "only" a 128kbps line connected to four customers paying for 128kbps, could either of them, in order to maximize the benefit of this line, prioritize content? To you and me, the answer is obviously a resounding NO. We operate under the logic that firstly you can't sell more than you can deliver, and secondly that no information can be favored, no matter the circumstances.
***Warning**this may be veering of course, not as internet savvy as I would like to be** Someone mentioned in the original VZN/Google post about HughesNet FAP (Fair Access Policy). This is touching on that dilemma. Cable bandwidth providers are also already doing similar (that is, selling more bandwidth than they can actually provide to each end-user). However, these issues haven't been directly addressed, or have they? I'm wondering if these negotiations have bearing on this.***
Lastly, take a look at Google's search engine. ISPs and IXs can cache something as simple as DNS or even a webpage. In the instance of Google's homepage, being as the actual page rarely changes, they can cache it with a longer TTL period. At what point does Net Neutrality become applicable? I don't think they their arguing preferential treatment of content, but rather, "statistically" prioritizing the most popular content, of which, there is little way to maintain proper oversight by the govt.
If there's a network problem between you and your destination, take it up with your ISP. They can determine if the problem is in their network or someone else's, and tell you if the problem is a saturated connection or forward it on to their network contacts, etc. Sometimes it's a little hard to get that level of service, but someone at your ISP should be able to diagnose connection problems.
Of course, if you're paying for something, and not getting it, you need to complain and consider switching ISPs. I understand switching ISPs is difficult in many areas, but Net Neutrality doesn't help with that.
I think that's part of it, but mostly I think they are realizing that if they are allowed to do this, they can capitalize on both sides of the transaction. They want content providers to have to pay to get access to their customer base. You're paying for an Internet connection, not AOL's walled garden, and that shouldn't be acceptable.
I think 'overselling' and bandwidth policies are a separate issue to net neutrality. NN is about not favouring one class of traffic over another, and just that. Lumping other ISP policy issues under that umbrella makes the scope too large to have a reasonable discussion on IMO.
This is a good question. My opinion is that just like they shouldn't be prioritizing traffic, they shouldn't be modifying it on the fly either, but this is a bit less clear because as you point out, caching is a valuable technique that can ease loads.
I see what you're getting at here, and it's an interesting point. My thinking is that while this is a possibility, it's dastardly enough that it would affect a lot of people and garner them plenty of disdain. Even with the very limited competition in the market I'm pretty sure they wouldn't go quite that far. More likely IMO is that they'll do things like throttle all streaming video except services that pay extra (or users who pay extra for the privilege), and things along those lines. They don't want to totally cripple their networks, just the traffic they think they can get away with charging extra for.
And ugh, the idea of charging extra for peered traffic?? Vultures.
No, which is exactly what net neutrality aims to prevent.
In your example, they would need to throttle your access to their services to match your access to the rest of the internet. And by that I mean throttled to what they are selling you, not to the load currently on the network. As in, if you pay for 8mbit, you need to get 8mbit access to everywhere, not 8mbit to the internet but 100mbit to their server, but 8mbit to the internet and 8mbit to their server.
But really, your situation has little to do with reality
But perhaps you should just read the wiki on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
But really, your situation has little to do with reality
Hey, we can agree on something.
I also agree that the Comcasts of the world shouldn't degrade the internet experience for users of (non comcast friendly) streaming video; I just don't see how you can legislate that, given the number of knobs available to the ISP, and the general lack of technical prowess of Congress.I purposefully made my example small. On a real network, I expect the customer line to be rate limited (either because of limitations of the technology, such as line length in DSL, or by a quota system), into the ISP network. Once on the ISP network, in a real life situation, I would expect there might be some limits on the connection to the internet (transit or peering) due to over-subscription. Depending on network design, bandwidth limitation within the ISP network might be negligible. It's perfectly reasonable in my mind for internal ISP network bandwidth to be in excess of external bandwidth (because of redundancy, etc). So if you're on an ISP with high congestion to the internet during peak times, you might still be able to reasonably expect full line rate use of ISP servers.
I looked at that wikipedia entry. Despite a lot of words, it doesn't actually say all that much; I guess if there were some legislation proposed, we could discuss the merits on the specifics, but it's too general right now. Really, the problem I have with most of that page is that it seems to be built upon the premise that there is 'one network'. There is no 'one network', it's a collection of networks, with a collection of links between them.
Another issue, after we debate bandwidth to death is latency. ISP servers are (or should be) always be lower latency than external servers, due to network topology, and/or physical location. An ISP hosted game server is going to have better latency (for customers) than something only provided on the east and west coasts... That's not really 'neutral' either.
As I see it, net neutrality is very simple: ISPs must treat all traffic on their network equally and transparently. That doesn't mean they can't peer to improve performance and reduce cost, and it specifically doesn't touch the issue of congestion anywhere on the network, just that all traffic must be equal at all times, regardless of source, destination, protocol or content.Hey, we can agree on something.
I think this is why it's dangerous to bring oversubscription and such issues, or any specific technical constraints (like latency jitter must be within 10ms or whatever) into the net neutrality debate. It's about equality on the network, not the quality of the network provided or the terms under which access is provided (not that I don't think there are serious issues here as well).
There are some peripheral issues that complicate things a bit, like how to deal with network providers that have a homogenous network for Internet and other services, but I don't think it would be difficult to craft narrow exemptions to allow networks to use their IP network in these ways without running into net neutrality concerns. Or wireless, which faces similar concerns.
Also I'm assuming that most people referring to net neutrality are applying their discussion specifically to end-user connections. Intra-network connections are different, and easy to exclude since they're generally not 'internet' connections, but predicated on specific peering agreements or designed only for point-to-point use or so on.
QFT to infinity and beyond...
Fortunately, it's limited to Gov't, and the upper level 'sloth' that pilot/direct these
mis-guided ships.
Rest assured, the short-changed citizens don't subscribe to this
thought process. Forget 'Mother Russia'...we've got *tons* of 'Mother Corporations.'
...motherfuckers that is.
Keep short-changing the hand of the people that help build you every day...
Sooner or later, it'll all come crumbling back down to basics, while they're
left wondering 'what happened?'
Fortunately, it's limited to Gov't, and the upper level 'sloth' that pilot/direct these
mis-guided ships.
we've got *tons* of 'Mother Corporations.'
This is exactly the truth. Ballmer and the corporate mafia took over nerddom with the aid of VC firms like Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Their goals are not all flowery and sweet. They'll even import 3.5 million guest workers just to boost profits. Support gpl/gnu.
Traffic discrimination is just another way to make money and prepare the masses for cloud tracking.
What happens if my home is right beside Google's Servers and I can only get a shoddy 10mb connection with high latency during peak times? What happens when Google outright buys the entire fiber line (that we share) for a peering connection, or sets aside 10mb? There is no motivation for new fiber to be laid for little ol' me.
Or again, if we take the wireless spectrum; let's say the entire bandwidth is over-saturated during peak hours in New York. What do you propose? Should companies simply not sell what they can't provide? So, instead your phone service plan starts to skyrocket as businesses can leverage more money per mb than you ever would be able to. While I'm just watching porn on my phone and there is a business utilizing the service, should we both experience reduced rates?
I little discussion with our govt. about the use of available bandwidth costs VZN nothing, but could gain them everything. This discussion does not burden anyone with the costs of avoiding the limitations I am speaking of. If someone argues that, if a company is in the business of providing access, they should be financially burdened with the responsibility of providing every access point with the same level of access what happens when VZN routes my traffic through an old IX while all of Google's traffic goes through their new, faster IX? How can that problem be avoided?
Did you even read what I wrote? This doesn't have anything to do with what I think of net neutrality. I specifically said I don't think it should be predicated on specific service levels. That's a separate issue, and one that I see as completely unrelated. What does this have to do with equally treating all traffic?
Again, this is not a net neutrality problem. If Google muscles you off the fiber you're already using, go after your provider for breach of lease or something. Lumping these kind of things into NN is IMO dangerous and brings up a lot of different debates that cloud the issue. I wish people could just talk about what net neutrality is supposed to mean - a guarantee that providers will treat all traffic equally.
Treat all traffic equally, like most network protocols do by default. Everyone's service sucks equally. Now if you'd read what I wrote, I did say that there needs to be some thought put into how to handle carriers that are using the same internal network to provide separate external services. I wouldn't personally have a problem with wireless providers prioritizing their (normal phone) voice traffic over data traffic, but I would have a problem with them prioritizing their partner's VoIP service over Skype on their generic data service.
toast0 does bring up the interesting point about peering and intentionally weighting routes poorly to particular networks and things like that. I don't have a solution, but I have a hard time believing that this is a worse situation than allowing providers to do it overtly. And with a reasonable complaint investigation system in place, I'm not sure this kind of intentional manipulation would fall through net neutrality anyway, but it depends how it would be implemented.
Within reason, yes, because everyone saturating their endpoint simultaneously is a completely ridiculous situation that's never going to happen. There will always be the possibility for congestion, but providers hopefully strive to keep it to a minimum by upgrading infrastructure. Personally I think there should be some regulation to guarantee that progress is made here (or rates come down over time), but this is an unrelated issue to net neutrality IMO. Your whole post seems to be tying service levels into net neutrality, and i don't think they're related. If you do, do tell me how, lots of people seem to think they are, but I don't get it.
westrock2000
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2005
- Messages
- 9,433
My question is, how would you even know that your connection is being idled? A couple kilobit connection sure you might notice, but how would you notice *only* getting 4Mb/s when you could be getting 16Mb/s to one site? What would make you jump to the conspiricy theory type situation and not just general hardware or connection issues?
I agree with what you wrote, but I was taking it one step further. You are saying that they are two separate unrelated issues, however I contend that they can easily be interlinked. I'm not replying to you solely. I agree with where Net Neutrality starts, but I don't believe it ends when my latency in WoW doesn't change.
Fiber isn't laid with a 3-5 year plan in place, it's laid with a 20+ year plan in place. Copper laid 30 years ago is now providing cable tv, internet, and digital phone service. In the interest of "get rich quick," investing in a 20+ year payout isn't gonna get the CEO a big bonus. Nobody is going to come to the govt. table and tell them they have an ambitious plan to provide every American with 1Gb/s service. That's what lobby groups were made for, to get the taxpayer to finance the success of their interests. And I'm not going off on evil corporations. This is sound business tactics, of which, takes foresight and shrewd planning.
If I dial 911 on my digital telephone, should that call be prioritized over everything else? If I'm saturating my full 16Mb/s connection by downloading bad HD porn (because good porn is always a priority), should my service be no less affected than OnStar's emergency help hotline? Back when I lived in AZ, in order to conserve water the city of Phoenix limited residents from watering their yards while businesses continued to water away, unaffected. Is that justified?
How do you force a company into providing more service for less profit?
Don't see a point here... everyone knows infrastructure is milked to the limit before it's replaced.
Maybe, if there's a way to do it that won't be abused for other sorts of traffic. Probably not hard to come up with a solution for this.
Not sure how these are related. How is your downloading HD porn going to affect Onstar? If they're using the commodity Internet to provide their service and your porn download is creating congestion, then yes, they should be equally affected.
Maybe. I don't see how it's related to the discussion.
Again, it seems like you're focusing entirely on service level and not on how ISPs treat traffic.
When did anyone ever say that? Bandwidth costs go down over time, amortized infrastructure costs go down over time. It is reasonable to expect constant improvement in quality or constant decrease in cost.
The effect of net neutrality on overall service level is to force ISPs not to sweep congestion issues and lack of infrastructure investment under the rug. But the more important issue in my opinion is maintaining the internet as an open, peer-to-peer network rather than turning it into the syndicated content network they want it to be.
When has any company argued for "turning it into the syndicated content network?"
The point about infrastructure has to do with the OP. These guys aren't merely interested in this meeting solely on net neutrality. Net Neutrality is a factor to a business, and it's not what their sole intent to provide to Americans.
I was alluding to precisely that answer... Maybe. If net neutrality is neutral, then it's neutral, not just neutral unless you wanna call 911, or because the economy of Phoenix largely depends on lush grass and palm trees (Do I agree with the city of Pheonix? Yes. 911? Not if it goes through the same lines subject to net neutrality).
ISPs aren't the only ones to be held accountable. Google owns fiber lines. The can lease them to Comcast, with routers at their IXs ensuring google traffic is always in top form. Google isn't taking on any responsibility of enforcing net neutrality here, and yet, they are optimizing the connection for themselves.
VZN and AT$T are hardly just ISPs. When did Google become one? Why are you laying net neutrality on the shoulders of ISPs?
If there is a solution to prioritize 911 calls above all else, who has oversight over that? Are all connections to the internet now under the jurisdiction of the govt to inspect for compliance? How do you prioritize anything over an infinite number of connections, while being safe from abuse?
That is a completely different situation. You are talking about prioritizing EMERGENCY situations (well, mainly 911), which is fine. Net neutrality is about preventing anti-competitive practices. Emergency vehicles get to exceed speed limits and run through red lights as well, essentially giving them priority on the road.
You know, all cell phone carriers are required to allow unsubscribed phones to dial 911. That is forcing companies to provide more service for less profit.
But again, net neutrality isn't about that. Emergency situations have always been treated differently.
Hop-Scotch
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2010
- Messages
- 954
You are making this far more complicated than it is. You keep going down into little details. NN isn't that complicated.
Example of non-neutral:
You are a Comcast customer, you want to connect to a server, but to get to that server you have to go through Verizon. Verizon slows your connection to the server because you aren't a Verizon customer. That's not being neutral.
Example of neutral:
You are a Comcast customer, you want to connect to a server, but to get to that server you have to go through Verizon. Verizon just allows your traffic to pass through.
That's being neutral.
I think it was you, but someone said that the internet wasn't just one big network, it was a series of networks. Well, the purpose of net neutrality is that it acts like one big network. No single network slows things down just because you aren't their customer, or because you are using an alternative to one of their services. All data flows freely.
Example of non-neutral:
You are a Comcast customer, you want to connect to a server, but to get to that server you have to go through Verizon. Verizon slows your connection to the server because you aren't a Verizon customer. That's not being neutral.
Example of neutral:
You are a Comcast customer, you want to connect to a server, but to get to that server you have to go through Verizon. Verizon just allows your traffic to pass through.
That's being neutral.
I think it was you, but someone said that the internet wasn't just one big network, it was a series of networks. Well, the purpose of net neutrality is that it acts like one big network. No single network slows things down just because you aren't their customer, or because you are using an alternative to one of their services. All data flows freely.