Netflix: The Misconception About Internet Fast Lanes

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Netflix's VP of content delivery says that internet fast lanes give ISPs a "perverse incentive to boost revenue." Heh, he said "perverse." :D

Allowing fast lanes gives ISPs a perverse incentive to boost revenues by allowing their networks to congest. It also gives them outsize power to pick winners and losers on the Internet. Those who can’t pay for fast lanes will suffer, entrenching incumbents while undermining the innovative power of the Internet.
Click to expand...
 
I did not read the full article yet, but the portion you quoted was spot on.

Internet vip/fast lanes will effectively kill the internet as we know it. The ISP's will purposely let traffic to non VIP/fast lane paying sites and services suffer in order to strong-arm those sites into paying up.

This would effectively be exactly the same principle as the mafia forcing store owner to pay for "protection".
 
I don't think there's any misconception at all, if you allow fast lanes, you are basically stating that other data doesn't get as much priority, that is other data gets slowed so whomever paid more gets to go fast.

I think of it like those car pool lanes that allow people to pay money to get in, while there really isn't any logical comparison as far as "car pool" with data by allowing people to pay to go faster you are slowing down the other lanes because there's less options for them.
 
Sometimes you just gotta state the obvious cause there's no such thing as common sense in society, especially these days.
 
Netflix needs to get off the disinformation train. They're not "fast lanes", it's relegating other traffic to arbitrary "slow lanes". Prioritization is not about making something go faster, but about slowing down unprioritized data.
 
w4ffles said:
All bits are equal, but some bits are more equal than others.
Click to expand...

They are not equal. All routers have Quality of Service engines and they prioritize based on several rules.

Your bits have been being prioritized for a long time. That's how a network operates.

On a router, every port is rated at Gigabit. That does not mean that everyone gets Gigabit speeds at all times. The same holds true for the Internet.
 
westrock2000 said:
They are not equal. All routers have Quality of Service engines and they prioritize based on several rules.

Your bits have been being prioritized for a long time. That's how a network operates.

On a router, every port is rated at Gigabit. That does not mean that everyone gets Gigabit speeds at all times. The same holds true for the Internet.
Click to expand...
This is a bad analogy.
QoS is service based. If you make the packets needed for telephony (VoIP) calls higher than lets say FTP, you're reducing the latency of the VoIP traffic over FTP traffic.
QoS doesn't care if your VoIP provider is the ISP you're connected to or a competitor.
If the ISP has the legal ability to prioritize their VoIP than the competitors, then you have internet fast lanes (really means internet slow lanes) to bully the competitors.
It's what Comcast is doing to Netflix.
Combine that with local monopolies and it really becomes unfair.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
This is a bad analogy.
QoS is service based. If you make the packets needed for telephony (VoIP) calls higher than lets say FTP, you're reducing the latency of the VoIP traffic over FTP traffic.
QoS doesn't care if your VoIP provider is the ISP you're connected to or a competitor.
If the ISP has the legal ability to prioritize their VoIP than the competitors, then you have internet fast lanes (really means internet slow lanes) to bully the competitors.
It's what Comcast is doing to Netflix.
Combine that with local monopolies and it really becomes unfair.
Click to expand...

Why does being "service based" differ in your mind from being application based? It's the same thing.

No one ever talks about the impact of Net Neutrality on QoS.
 
Quix said:
Netflix needs to get off the disinformation train. They're not "fast lanes", it's relegating other traffic to arbitrary "slow lanes". Prioritization is not about making something go faster, but about slowing down unprioritized data.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the end result is the same.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
This is a bad analogy.
QoS is service based. If you make the packets needed for telephony (VoIP) calls higher than lets say FTP, you're reducing the latency of the VoIP traffic over FTP traffic.
QoS doesn't care if your VoIP provider is the ISP you're connected to or a competitor.
If the ISP has the legal ability to prioritize their VoIP than the competitors, then you have internet fast lanes (really means internet slow lanes) to bully the competitors.
It's what Comcast is doing to Netflix.
Combine that with local monopolies and it really becomes unfair.
Click to expand...

Let's step this out a bit though. Let's say you run a wireless ISP, BigNet. You run an LTE network over which you offer VoLTE as a service. VoLTE essentially functions as an Over the top (OTT) service. Let's say you have users who want to use a different OTT voice app, XYZype. You control the network through which your customers can use your OTT VoLTE solution, while someone else's OTT solution may include routing through networks you have no control of.

Are you degrading someone else's access? They can't use their provider of choice at the same level they could use yours, because you aren't supporting that other service.

Let's step this out a little more: let's say you also have a streaming video service. You know your own architecture and can build your service to match your footprint, and you control the end-to-end experience within your own network. However when your customers are requesting streaming videos from other providers, and those requests and resultant traffic traverse *multiple other networks from multiple other providers*, is it your fault if their experience is not as positive as one you can control?
 
flashoverride said:
Let's step this out a bit though. Let's say you run a wireless ISP, BigNet. You run an LTE network over which you offer VoLTE as a service. VoLTE essentially functions as an Over the top (OTT) service. Let's say you have users who want to use a different OTT voice app, XYZype. You control the network through which your customers can use your OTT VoLTE solution, while someone else's OTT solution may include routing through networks you have no control of.

Are you degrading someone else's access? They can't use their provider of choice at the same level they could use yours, because you aren't supporting that other service.

Let's step this out a little more: let's say you also have a streaming video service. You know your own architecture and can build your service to match your footprint, and you control the end-to-end experience within your own network. However when your customers are requesting streaming videos from other providers, and those requests and resultant traffic traverse *multiple other networks from multiple other providers*, is it your fault if their experience is not as positive as one you can control?
Click to expand...
Lol.
When you're a big ISP and you go out of your way to degrade your competition's service, it's way different than saying your infrastructure isn't up to snuff to handle the traffic.
 
The bits are as equal as the money behind the said bits, just like in a trial.
 
Using QoS at work to prioritize VoIP is standard. Using QoS to prioritize Susan's VoIP over everyone else is bias.

What's great is there was a similar net neutrality thread yesterday that already had a solid 6 responses on the first page telling us how bad of an idea it was with all of the typical anti-liberal-obama-democrat underpinnings rolled into it. The conservative grassroots disinformation campaign is back into full effect and we are finally starting to see the fruits of their labor, everyday average forum users rallying against their own best interests once again. I eagerly await to see how they manipulate the concept of internet fast lanes into their favor and tell us how this is also a good thing.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
Lol.
When you're a big ISP and you go out of your way to degrade your competition's service, it's way different than saying your infrastructure isn't up to snuff to handle the traffic.
Click to expand...

Comcast in is pimping their Hotspot system which makes part of your internet service available to the general public. When someone asked if the public access is throttled to not impair the primary user's service, the spokeswoman said that there was no need there's plenty of throughput available and they're constantly expanding it.
 
McFry said:
Using QoS at work to prioritize VoIP is standard. Using QoS to prioritize Susan's VoIP over everyone else is bias.
Click to expand...

Using QoS to prioritize 911 VOIP over Netflix is just fine with me.
 
flashoverride said:
Let's step this out a bit though. Let's say you run a wireless ISP, BigNet. You run an LTE network over which you offer VoLTE as a service. VoLTE essentially functions as an Over the top (OTT) service. Let's say you have users who want to use a different OTT voice app, XYZype. You control the network through which your customers can use your OTT VoLTE solution, while someone else's OTT solution may include routing through networks you have no control of.

Are you degrading someone else's access? They can't use their provider of choice at the same level they could use yours, because you aren't supporting that other service.

Let's step this out a little more: let's say you also have a streaming video service. You know your own architecture and can build your service to match your footprint, and you control the end-to-end experience within your own network. However when your customers are requesting streaming videos from other providers, and those requests and resultant traffic traverse *multiple other networks from multiple other providers*, is it your fault if their experience is not as positive as one you can control?
Click to expand...


Yes and Yes. They are providing internet access, not access to their LAN. So that includes services/application/whatever outside of their network. The issue is that they are selling internet access, but also have their own content services. So they prioritize traffic for their services, while purposely degrading (or not improving) access to competing providers. That is the problem that needs to be fixed.

But once again, this problem can be solved easily with competition. Look at areas with google fiber? The big ISPs are scrambling to upgrade their network to please customers in those areas. Now imagine that is the case all over the country? That is the real solution. Then if some asshole provider starts throttling competing services, you can just change providers...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top