Obama seeks broad government control over internet

[NightHawkeye]

No, it's not complicated, but yet you still fail to understand it.

We can go into as much detail as you'd like but that won't change the arrangement Netflix and Comcast agreed to: Netflix and Comcast Reach Internet Connection Agreement

“This is pretty much like any other interconnection agreement,” the source said. Comcast is not co-locating Netflix-supplied servers in its network under Netflix’s Open Connect content-delivery network program, this source added, although the video traffic is in fact handed off to Comcast through the Netflix CDN. Nor is the agreement a “peering” arrangement, in which two networks agree on a framework for exchanging Internet traffic, according to the source.​

Netflix got no preferential treatment though they sought it ... and did not embed their CDN within Comcast's network.

At this point, it shouldn't matter who or what constitutes the greatest usage of bandwidth on the internet, because all of the bandwidth is paid for. Whether you spend all day downloading cat videos or I spend all day watching netflix and playing CoD doesn't matter.

Are you making the argument that every single internet user can spend all day every day downloading data at 10+ Mbps ... and that existing networks will support that?

Where net neutrality comes in is when Comcast et al want to artificially restrict/throttle access to certain services because it's to their own advantage.

Yes, I understand that is the argument being rolled out to establish control.

Tell me how easy that would be exactly. What would it take to reprogram the majority of the world's networking equipment?

At least we now seem to agree that neither side is interested in "net neutrality" in the academic sense of true equality for all data streams.

There's nothing thinly disguised about it. Yes, it's an attempt to allow greater regulation of ISP's.

Indeed we do agree about that.

What it isn't is some takeover of the internet or "Obamacare" of the internet.

It is the government determining who the winners will be and who the losers will be ... and charging a king's ransom for doing so.

That's not good.

 

[HorsieJuice]

We can go into as much detail as you'd like but that won't change the arrangement Netflix and Comcast agreed to: Netflix and Comcast Reach Internet Connection Agreement

I'm not sure what your point is. That's just more about what I've already been saying.

Are you making the argument that every single internet user can spend all day every day downloading data at 10+ Mbps ... and that existing networks will support that?

No. I'm saying that there should be no anti-competitive artificial throttling of access.

Yes, I understand that is the argument being rolled out to establish control.

Then why do you pretend that there's something more afoot?

It is the government determining who the winners will be and who the losers will be

I'd love to see your logic for arriving at that conclusion.

 

[Joykins]

Noting that "all packets having equal priority" requires no regulatory oversight. It is a simple definition of internet protocol.

Just sayin ...

Really, if Verizon and Comcast want to do just that--prioritize some traffic--and they *can*--who else is going to stop them?

 

[NightHawkeye]

No. I'm saying that there should be no anti-competitive artificial throttling of access.

Then why do you pretend that there's something more afoot?

We seem to agree that there's a limited amount of bandwidth to go around. More precisely, each Internet Service Provider (ISP) has limits to the amount of data it can handle and deliver to its customers. My own data rate drops to about 750 kbps during peak times but is 15 - 20 Mbps at off-peak. That extremely low data rate both interferes with streaming video and is caused by streaming video.

Now, I could scream about the unfairness of the situation because some users closer to town fare much better ... and I've complained some and seen modest improvements. In truth, my ISP has a sloppy operation with just a little maliciousness thrown in.

My ISP also is the local cable TV provider ... and thus already a highly regulated utility. I fired their cable TV operation years ago because service was so bad. I really don't want to see how much worse they can make their internet operation with the feds overseeing that.

 

[Joykins]

We seem to agree that there's a limited amount of bandwidth to go around. More precisely, each Internet Service Provider (ISP) has limits to the amount of data it can handle and deliver to its customers. My own data rate drops to about 750 kbps during peak times but is 15 - 20 Mbps at off-peak. That extremely low data rate both interferes with streaming video and is caused by streaming video.

OK, that's across the board.

Now imagine the video *you* want to watch is being throttled *even more* while other traffic gets priority. Because Comcast got lots of $$ from CNN and, let's say Disney Teen, while The Blaze did not pay them.

Is that fair? You're paying for bandwidth your ISP is only pretending to give you anyway, and if the provider doesn't pony up they're going to make your experience worse--and even more terrible if your chosen provider is more popular than those who have paid the ISP for priority access, since even more people are trying to download on slow speeds....

 

[NightHawkeye]

OK, that's across the board.

Now imagine the video *you* want to watch is being throttled *even more* while other traffic gets priority. Because Comcast got lots of $$ from CNN and, let's say Disney Teen, while The Blaze did not pay them.

Is that fair? You're paying for bandwidth your ISP is only pretending to give you anyway, and if the provider doesn't pony up they're going to make your experience worse--and even more terrible if your chosen provider is more popular than those who have paid the ISP for priority access, since even more people are trying to download on slow speeds....

Hi, Joykins.

For the record, my ISP company already discriminates against The Blaze. They refuse to provide it in their cable TV lineup. Do they have the right to do that ... under government regulation? Yes, they do, even with government regulation. Comcast similarly discriminates against The Blaze. It's their loss.

Like I said my cable company made their choice in regard to The Blaze. I made mine. It's not complicated when the free market is allowed to operate. BTW, did you know that CNN pulled its programming from DISH network. DISH replaced CNN Headline News with The Blaze TV. DISH replaced CNN with MSNBC. That's free market operation for ya. Gotta love it.

I find all the expressed concerns about ISPs throttling content providers specious in comparison to the way government regulated cable TV operates.

 

[AirForceTeacher]

But in most communities, there is no true free market for ISPs - there's usually one cable provider, who is the only ISP giving 20-100M service, and one DSL provider offering 1-10M service, and in many states the cable companies have lobbied for laws to prevent cities and towns from offering municipal internet service because it's "unfair competition" with private industry, which usually has an exclusive deal with cities anyway. It's not the least be consumer friendly, but the Socialism fearmonger brigade has a lot of people convinced that "the FREE MARKET SAVES ALL!", even though local cable markets are the exact opposite of a free market.

 

[NightHawkeye]

But in most communities, there is no true free market for ISPs - there's usually one cable provider, who is the only ISP giving 20-100M service, and one DSL provider offering 1-10M service, and in many states the cable companies have lobbied for laws to prevent cities and towns from offering municipal internet service because it's "unfair competition" with private industry, which usually has an exclusive deal with cities anyway. It's not the least be consumer friendly, but the Socialism fearmonger brigade has a lot of people convinced that "the FREE MARKET SAVES ALL!", even though local cable markets are the exact opposite of a free market.

That's not an accurate characterization of the market.

In my community there are two local cable ISPs, at least one DSL, a host of cellular providers, and multiple satellite and RF link providers. That's competition. I daresay most cities in the US have even more choices than I have here.

 

[Joykins]

AT&T pulls out the big guns.

AT&T to ?pause? 100-city fiber buildout because of net neutrality rules | Ars Technica

 

[NightHawkeye]

AT&T pulls out the big guns.

AT&T to ?pause? 100-city fiber buildout because of net neutrality rules | Ars Technica

Government interference invariably slows things down.

 

[Joykins]

Government interference invariably slows things down.

Government hasn't done anything yet. AT&T apparently doesn't think it should be up for debate.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Government hasn't done anything yet. AT&T apparently doesn't think it should be up for debate.

The mere threat of government interference invariably slows things down.

Why should ATT invest in infrastructure if they'll simply be giving it away in the near future?

 

[Joykins]

The mere threat of government interference invariably slows things down.

Why should ATT invest in infrastructure if they'll simply be giving it away in the near future?

Nobody is saying that AT&T can't continue to charge or overcharge its customers for its services and networks well into the future.

They just shouldn't be able to give some content providers fast lanes and throttle others.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Nobody is saying that AT&T can't continue to charge or overcharge its customers for its services and networks well into the future.

They just shouldn't be able to give some content providers fast lanes and throttle others.

The problem is that all internet providers already throttle some content and expedite others ... and nobody wants fairness, per se, not the ISPs, not the content providers and not the government.

Net neutrality is simply the government determining which content gets expedited and which doesn't. It won't end well.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Net neutrality is simply the government determining which content gets expedited and which doesn't. It won't end well.

So, "Nothing gets expedited; everything travels at the same speed" won't end well how?

 

[AirForceTeacher]

So, "Nothing gets expedited; everything travels at the same speed" won't end well how?

Exactly.

 

[NightHawkeye]

So, "Nothing gets expedited; everything travels at the same speed" won't end well how?

I went through this with HJ already ... by forcing the contradiction. Perhaps we can expedite the process this time.

Traffic shaping - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Traffic shaping is of interest especially to Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Their high-cost, high-traffic networks are their major assets, and as such, are the focus of all their attentions. They sometimes use traffic shaping to optimize the use of their network, sometimes by intelligently shaping traffic according to importance, other times by discouraging uses of applications by harsh means. There are those who believe it is not the ISP's place to decide what is "important"; in such cases per-client traffic shaping is more effective without creating potential controversies about what traffic is being controlled.

To ISPs, mere protocol identification (classification) gives the intangible yet significant benefit of seeing what internet traffic is flowing through the network. From this they can see which subscribers are doing what on their network and can target services to the subscriber base they have attracted. However as time progresses, more and more protocols are using tunneling and encryption to defeat these methods. Also, many protocols are very difficult or impossible to detect. In such cases, per-client shaping is more effective. By establishing policies based on the IP or IP grouping of a client, ISPs ensure that end users cannot defeat shaping by disguising protocols or encrypting their traffic.

In addition, intelligent shaping schemes can guarantee a particular Quality of Service (often measured in jitter, packet loss, and latency) for an application or a user while still allowing other traffic to use all remaining bandwidth. This allows ISPs to offer Differentiated services and to upsell existing services to subscribers (such as offering minimum-latency computer gaming for an additional fee on top of basic internet).

More importantly, shaping allows ISPs to tier their services using software, reducing their costs and increasing the menu of products they can offer.

For Wireless ISP's, particularly those who use Wifi-based protocols, Congestive collapse is a serious problem. Due to the unfortunate nature of Wifi when several stations are all trying to access a single access point at once, once the load is past roughly 95% channel load, the throughput starts to drop dramatically. Whilst the channel stays at the same usage (roughly 99%), the throughput just gets slower and slower due to the number of retries. TCP performance may be greatly impacted by the long delay over the wireless link caused by the congestion at the access point. A long delay can cause expiration of the TCP RTO timer at the sender's side and then force TCP into slow-start. On the other hand, if the long delay is experienced on the ACK path, it could cause the so-called "ACK compression", which will disturb the synchronization between the TCP sender and the TCP receiver. Multiple compressed ACKs if passing through the wireless access point all together can clock-out the same amount of large packets from the TCP sender and all of them may arrive at the wireless bottleneck in a short time and further worsen the congestion there. Therefore traffic shaping should be seriously considered on a WISP in order to avoid these possible performance impacts.​

 

[TLK Valentine]

Exactly.

I suppose the answer is because Ted Cruz doesn't like it.

Then again, Ted Cruz is being paid not to like it, so take his opinion for what it's worth -- Comcast certainly did.

 

[Belk]

The problem is that all internet providers already throttle some content and expedite others ... and nobody wants fairness, per se, not the ISPs, not the content providers and not the government.

They do? That is news to me. Do you have evidence of this widespread practice of selectively modifying traffic speeds for different types of content?

Net neutrality is simply the government determining which content gets expedited and which doesn't. It won't end well.

No, it is government saying you can't selectively give priority to any traffic. Why do you keep misstating this?

 

[TLK Valentine]

They do? That is news to me. Do you have evidence of this widespread practice of selectively modifying traffic speeds for different types of content?

*crickets chirp...*

No, it is government saying you can't selectively give priority to any traffic. Why do you keep misstating this?

How useful is the truth?