Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,315
I'm pointing out to you that your argument isnt about net neutrality.
I'm not advocating what should or shouldnt be allowed, you were doing that.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Advocacy Groups Duped Into Fighting Net Neutrality
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
I'm pointing out to you that your argument isnt about net neutrality.
I'm not advocating what should or shouldnt be allowed, you were doing that.
Skripka
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 10,791
And somehow it has become the ISP's job to determine what traffic is and is not important/legitimate.
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,315
It can only be their responsibility if they are legally bound to block said data and have the ability to detect it accurately.
Its still nothing to do with net neutrality though.
I never advocated either. Amazing how many arguments I'm making that I didn't know I was making.
Net neutrality is about the neutral treatment of data. It was originally about the fears of tiered service cutting out smaller websites and relegating them to the more expensive tiers, while the cheaper tiers would be populated by bigger sites like Amazon, Google, EBay, etc. Ten years later...that hasn't happened...so the goalposts have been moved.
My argument is that all network data is not equal, and the claim that it is works as nothing more than an empty rallying cry.
cdr_74_premium
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,577
Well, if the ISP market was open net neutrality would be a bummer. After all, one could get a Facebook+Email only plan if that's what they used, and it would be priced accordingly.
Too bad government grant monopolies left and right. So if one provider decides how you ought to use the bandwidth that you're paying for, you have no option to get internet service elsewhere. In that context - a not ideal one might I add - net neutrality makes sense. I guess.
Too bad government grant monopolies left and right. So if one provider decides how you ought to use the bandwidth that you're paying for, you have no option to get internet service elsewhere. In that context - a not ideal one might I add - net neutrality makes sense. I guess.
1 It is to solve the bandwith problem companies like Netflix and Youtube are causing
2 It was.
Did Comcast throttle? It is likely they did. That doesn't change the problem. There isn't unlimited bandwidth, no mater how much you would like to believe there is.
cdr_74_premium
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,577
Errr, let me think about it:
1) Youtube and Netflit have the bandwidth to take all income connections.
2) Provider sells bandwidth to customers at a price X, then does not want to deliver because service X, Y or Z are "consuming" too much bandwidth the consumer paid for?
Does not make sense. If the provider doesn't want to get the bandwidth available, stop selling it.
1) Youtube and Netflit have the bandwidth to take all income connections.
2) Provider sells bandwidth to customers at a price X, then does not want to deliver because service X, Y or Z are "consuming" too much bandwidth the consumer paid for?
Does not make sense. If the provider doesn't want to get the bandwidth available, stop selling it.
Skripka
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 10,791
No there isn't...then again US ISPs have been studiously ignoring improving their infrastructure for years...all the while seeing usage creep up.
Hell the old ISP my parents had oversold their bandwidth to the extent that even at off-hours my parents could only get 1.5megabit down on a 6megabit connection...ISP continues to do nothing. They're fat and happy. They haven't innovated....and somehow you're fine with legislating their corporate laziness into law?
StoleMyOwnCar
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2013
- Messages
- 2,997
Well what are we paying ISP's for? I was under the impression that "internet service provider" means they took care of providing me service that connected me to the internet. All of it. At equal speeds (that they know they are capable of sustaining).
What took place with Comcast (and probably Verizon/ATT) is that Cogent wasn't enough. Netflix apparently needed to actually go and get their own servers within the ISP datacenters to handle all of their traffic which the ISP's were apparently refusing to carry properly (or whatever the excuse is). So they're going to end up paying all of the ISP's + Cogent to get their data across. Which by the way makes those little bundle TV packages with the ISP's look a bit better when Netflix starts the price hikes. After all, you can't choose who your ISP's are but you can definitely choose who you get content from.
No, it isn't any more important. For one if your kid just swallowed a bunch of bleach or rat poison you should be rushing to the hospital, not sitting around trying to get a web site to load. Two, whose fault is it that the web site won't load? Your unknowing neighbor doing things that he's perfectly within his rights to? I don't even see what point you're making here.
Do you understand how the peering system works? The idea is that you peer with someone and share an roughly equal bandwidth pass through on your networks. Peering does not work in the case of video streaming. Why? Because the content hosting companies flood the network in one direction. They are not facilitating the flow of bandwidth for their partner in roughly equal manner. Therefore one of the two parties is being left out to dry by absorbing all of the costs of movement for the other party. So the "peer" isn't really a peer anymore but rather a means of connection.
I am not saying that the customers shouldn't get what they pay for, that is an irrelevant fact in this argument. The disagreement is focused less on the content being delivered or not and more on the peering agreements that are wholly unbalanced to the favor of the content hosting companies.
Ah yes, I remember you from this recent thread: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1040880528
Do they pay well?
DarkStar02
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,144
This is your argument but you have not made a case for it anywhere so far in this thread. Go back through the thread and read his posts in relation to yours.
This is your argument but you have not made a case for it anywhere so far in this thread. Go back through the thread and read his posts in relation to yours.
I've made multiple examples of data that, ostensibly, anyone would consider of more value than other data. Nobody wants to engage on that because the minute they give up the "all data is equal" bullshit, they lose a lot of superficial steam. Again...it's something nobody wants to admit because "equality" is now a trendy word to apply to everything, rather than a tangible concept.
All data is equal - to the ISP. The type or source of data has no impact on the way it is transmitted. There are legitimate arguments for prioritizing data based on category (some types of data require more bandwidth, others require low latency) but in terms of actually transmitting internet data, 1's and 0's are 1's and 0's. if you cant deliver a promised level of service to your customers then you need to upgrade YOUR infrastructure.
Skripka
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 10,791
But that costs money and shit. And ZOMG LOOK SQUIRREL!
Ashbringer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,522
Depends on who you work for. In a office work environment, looking at YouTube videos and Facebook is certainly lower priority then something work related. You're at a job, you should be working. But at home you don't have a boss to tell you what packets are more important. Whatever you're doing should be the most important. Therefore all packets should be treated equally.
Networks aren't limited resources unless you want them to be limited. If there isn't enough bandwidth then you expand your infrastructure, instead of using QOS to solve your problems. But the real problem is the lack of competition for the service. We wouldn't be arguing over this if we all had at least 2 equally competitive choices for our internet. Everyone has access to cable, which happens to provide TV. This creates a conflict of interest which brings us inevitably to net neutrality.
MrCaffeineX
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,604
Sometimes I read the posts on this sub-forum and shake my head at the state of human affairs. Then I read something like this and I remember why I come here: there are smart people on here capable of putting together a rational argument in addition to the trolls, admittedly entertaining as they may be sometimes.
People thought that I was crazy when I made the same argument about companies that received bailout money. I was opposed to the bailout and I remain opposed to the government establishing limits on CEO pay, except in the instance where a company receives tax incentives, bailouts, etc. To me, that is a fair exchange. If you were capable of running your company in a responsible manner, the likelihood that you would even need a bailout is significantly diminished. In the event that you do require that helping hand, there most definitely should be strings attached.
Net neutrality can and should be handled in the same manner. If you receive the market advantages that come along with limited local monopoly status (their term would be local exclusivity agreements) then you should most certainly have to deal with some additional regulation with respect to how your business operates. Tax incentives, subsidized loans for infrastructure expansion, direct cash infusions for infrastructure expansion, generous allowances that offset profits for tax purposes - all of these things are advantages conferred upon primarily the largest ISPs, so attaching some terms and conditions is perfectly fine with me.
Also, there is no perfect analogy for the manner in which ISPs are arguably double-dipping by charging customers and content providers for providing access to content, but several of the arguments made whenever this topic comes up do make sense. Given the complexity of the topic, without a simple analogy to relate the conversation to, it does not surprise me in the least that the ISPs are able to manipulate their customers into doing their bidding. Discussion of the issue only becomes more convoluted when you add in the fact that ISPs are also now, in several cases, the dominant content providers. It is not unprecedented for the government to step in and use anti-trust laws/regulations to curtail the business practices of organizations that have complete control over a market segment from production (content creation), to distribution (broadcast/streaming), to sales (monthly service fees).
As with all cases where the government gets involved, there is the potential for things to not work out for the best, but that does not mean that in all cases the government should do nothing. There is enough common ground that consumers can band together over to demand the changes necessary to keep the Internet the place that we all know and love. Those same consumers also have the responsibility to ensure that neither they, nor the government, go too far with their regulatory efforts. It is just a matter of getting the ground rules established and then letting the game play out from there.
shspvr
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2009
- Messages
- 735
He has not idea what talk about
First of all ISP sells bandwidth to customers at a price X for speed X if they don't upgrade there lines there never meet the said X with the over sold pipe.
And m heisty I hate tell you this but all packets are equal it base on your speed of each device your home router all ready dose this.
You see the streaming service is stealing all TV-cutting customers because dame look at what cost and darn thing and near 80% of the channel are worse less carp I mean come do really need 100s of sports, music, on demand, per-view channel.
This would be a valid argument sans one major issue. Many of the banks that recieved bail outs A) didn't need the money B) were on some level forced into the situation by the government via lending laws from 15 years earlier.
Wierdo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,817
So now Net Neutrality is an issue of QoS. Good way to defraud the tech-illiterate public, confuse them with basics.
QoS:
- Guy using Skype + Streaming movie.
- Skype gets priority.
Net Neutrality:
- Guy streaming movie from Netflix then tried same movie from Comcast's Netflix alternative.
- Comcast makes Netflix service choppy and lower quality allowed, their service runs smooth and doesn't count toward usage quota.
Simple enough kids?
QoS:
- Guy using Skype + Streaming movie.
- Skype gets priority.
Net Neutrality:
- Guy streaming movie from Netflix then tried same movie from Comcast's Netflix alternative.
- Comcast makes Netflix service choppy and lower quality allowed, their service runs smooth and doesn't count toward usage quota.
Simple enough kids?
Skripka
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 10,791
The bad mortgages weren't what did the banking institutions in.
It was all the insurance fraud on shitty derivatives they tried to make billions off of by the sale of those shitty mortgages that did them in. The government "forcing" banks into lending had little to do with the collapse of the banking sector, it was short-sighted blind-to-consequences Wall Street greed that sank our banking sector.
All the damage to the banking institutions was done by themselves.
1 Grammar.
2 No all packets are not equal, they never have been, and never will be in an efficiently functioning network.
3 Speed has nothing to do with packet equality.
Are you serious? The loans had nothing to do with it? Did the derivatives exacerbate the problem? Yes, however if people had paid their mortgages like they were supposed to the credit default swaps wouldn't have mattered. When AIG was forced to pay insurance on mis-rated derivatives and was unable to it triggered what is called a crisis of confidence. Many of the banks that tanked weren't really in all that bad of shape but were caught up in the confidence crisis.
Its completely irrelevant which packets YOU think are more important than others. The point is simple is that ISPs shouldn't be gatekeepers for the internet, because its not necessary, what is more important is subjective and should be up to the end user NOT the ISP, and it creates a tremendous conflict of interest since the ISPs are also content providers and thus will do their best to slow down or increase the costs of competing content providers. And that is the main issue of contention and the reason that major ISPs are trying to strike down net neutrality, so they can either get the entire internet to pay them for access to their customers while maintaining local monopolies to those customers while simultaneously encouraging the consumption of their own content since competition will be rendered either too expensive after they take their slice or too slow to meet expectations.
Still waiting for you to answer why all data should be put through equally.
Still waiting for you to answer why it shouldn't
I think the rest of us are still waiting for you to tell us who is going to be deciding what data is more important, why it's considered more important and who is going to ensure that monopoly abuses by the same ISP's that create content won't be abused.
CreepyUncleGoogle
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 6,871
Because my cat pics are just as important as my e-mail and my access to allrecipies.com and I think that all of them should be treated equally in relationship to the cat pics my next door neighbor downloads or their video stream from Amazon.
There are lots of good reasons to set priorities, but most residential users aren't looking for priority provisioning of certain types of their traffic since their usage model doesn't demand it.
Also, cat pics.
People mainly look at things from their point of view.
You all want to know why all packets shouldn't be treated equally? I'll give you a reason. If all packets are treated equally they have to by definition have to be handled in a FIFO accounting manner. As in the first packet received has to be the first packet routed. So if you were sending a group of packets and someone else sends a group at the same time as you the packets will have to be intermingled. If one of your packets drops the entire set has to be sent again. This will cause unncessary bandwidth usage. If the packets can be shaped and bundled they can be sent as a group and the server on the other side can request individual packets if one is dropped on the way, rather than requesting the entire group to be resent.
That is one of many networking reasons as to why packets are not equal.
You all want to know why all packets shouldn't be treated equally? I'll give you a reason. If all packets are treated equally they have to by definition have to be handled in a FIFO accounting manner. As in the first packet received has to be the first packet routed. So if you were sending a group of packets and someone else sends a group at the same time as you the packets will have to be intermingled. If one of your packets drops the entire set has to be sent again. This will cause unncessary bandwidth usage. If the packets can be shaped and bundled they can be sent as a group and the server on the other side can request individual packets if one is dropped on the way, rather than requesting the entire group to be resent.
That is one of many networking reasons as to why packets are not equal.
Skripka
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 10,791
And if that had anything to do with the FCC net neutrality argument as it actually is...that would be great.
That is the basis of "net neutrality." It doesn't exist, it never has and never will.
I haven't made any assertions to those issues. I'm going to the core of the matter: the claim that all data should be treated equally, hence "net neutrality". I've yet to have anyone explain a real reason why all data should be treated equally. You're going off on other tangents. Let's talk about the most basic philosophy in play.
Skripka
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 10,791
We've been talking about it for 2 pages...how about you take one step closer to the monitor and actually read for once.
Petulance. It's your bag, baby.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,991
Let me follow your question with a question. Is that what giving "fast lanes" is going to be about? Actually analyzing the data and determining what it is and what priority it should have? Or is it about seeing where the data comes from and determining whether or not they bought a pass to go faster (or slower).
See in your ideal world, I might agree with you on some level, however those I pay for my access to the internet have shown time and again that is not what they want to do. Why? Because botnets still exist, if it was as easy as saying "oh hey that's a botnet doing malicious stuff coming from 100,000 of our clients, lets just slow that data down to 1kbps and see how it does" then they wouldn't work. Also certain ISPs have shown to cripple services that compete with what they offer. Remember this is about the idea that the internet is an infrastructure, this isn't an argument that "they company should be able to do what they want, it's their lines" and as an infrastructure they should give me access to whatever data that's on the internet without restricting it. So yeah a byte is a byte whether it's the magical cure for AIDS or a video of goats barfing on kids.
I'd pay good money to see that.
Maybe you should try reading. I've repeatedly asked for an explanation and all I've gotten in response is "WHY DO YOU WANT COMCAST TO TAKE AWAY ALL OUR GOOD STUFF MANG???" That's not an answer. I'm waiting for someone to answer the question "why should all data be treated equally?" Already I've shown that obviously some data is more valued by society and other data, so all data is not equal. Therefore, if all data is not inherently equal, then what is the basis for throughputting it equally? People are upset that ISPs MIGHT not put it through equally, but why should they? What's the imperative that is violated when this bit over here gets priority over another?
Skripka
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 10,791
The reason the internet is the wonderful thing it is...is because all data is up for anyone's eyes to look and find and winners are only chosen based on merit of content. Allowing ISPs to willy-nilly traffic shape is akin to turning a blind eye to a mafia shakedown. It serves no one's interest not in the short term or in the long-term.
You've cooked up a handful of scenarios...and I could cook up just as many. I need to do a roof repair, why is my YouTube video on roof repair ipso facto less important than you dicking around on HardForum? Moreover why the hell should the ISP decide which is "more important".