Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, ISP's can indeed control data speed. It is called "rate limiting" and it is done by configuration of the back room equipment. I used to do that kind of thing when I was a network engineer.
Yeah, I know. The point was they can only control their competitor's speed if their competitor is using their network hardware. Cox providing cable tv and netflix streaming for example - their incentive is to slow down netflix so that you will watch their cable content instead.
But if you have two competing ISP's one cannot slow down the other one, and consumers can say "I'm going to dump that slow cable and get DSL" if both are available. Years ago (as you probably well know) it seemed to go the other way - dump DSL for the faster cable connection. AFAIK, cable now has more or less a monopoly on urban areas - its only the sticks where we still use DSL.
THAT is why this comes up now, not because there's the need to regulate this as a utility, but because the somewhat free market produced localized monopolization.
the future of media delivery is live streaming over broadband. Control of the broadband is crucial for future access. It's either the people control delivery or the ISPs do.
I certainly agree with you there. I still think the solution is to get the ISP's out of the content provider business - which is basically the problem you have with cable internet.
Aren't the data rates where the differences between a movie and an email become apparent?
The rates are of course different. No one is suggesting my Internet link is priced like that of NetFlix's server farm. But per packet - it is the same cost, or so close as to making no difference.
Quote:
That costs them more money, and since netflix's business depends on your moving being watchable without a bunch of buffering halts, it's in their best interest to provide some of that money to get the faster service.
And NetFlix is paying considerably more than I do, so that evens out.
Quote:
Now some regulation is certainly required to prevent the problems that mowhawk was talking about - the digital protection racket where if you don't want to pay they turn you down to the glacial setting. But there are other ways to do that, and I suspect better ones than what is being proposed here
If not the government, then who? Who do you envision stepping in as arbiter?
Quote:
- because what is being proposed basically removes a lot of the incentive to seek better and better data rates. As internet usage continues to grow, you will see the negative effects of this by having universally slow and sucky internet.
Net neutrality has been the order of the day until now, and bandwidth and service levels have only gone up.
Idiot Ted Cruz is against it because Obama. I can't believe ditto-heads are lining up to support a throttling of their internet speeds.
"'Net Neutrality' is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government," tweeted Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).
Quote:
Cruz's spokeswoman, Amanda Carpenter, added that net neutrality would place the government "in charge of determining pricing, terms of service, and what products can be delivered."
They're just flat-out, deliberately lying now. And the Tea Party will eat it up.
Do you trust the government to make anything better?
Especially with this nitwit at the helm? I mean, he has an outstanding track record.
Why do lefties believe that government has YOUR best interest at heart?
“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,†says the MIT economist who helped write Obamacare. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.â€
Why do you believe big business is on your side and will make everything better? And why do you conflate this with Obamacare, they have nothing to do with one another.
The rates are of course different. No one is suggesting my Internet link is priced like that of NetFlix's server farm. But per packet - it is the same cost, or so close as to making no difference.
And NetFlix is paying considerably more than I do, so that evens out.
If not the government, then who? Who do you envision stepping in as arbiter?
Net neutrality has been the order of the day until now, and bandwidth and service levels have only gone up.
Well one of us seems to be very confused, and that could well be me. If net neutrality has been the order of the day up til now, how come netflix is paying more for their connection than you are? I suspect its because net neutrality has a very specific meaning, one that politicians can't grasp. Net neutrality has been the order of the day until now in regards to content neutral speed, not bandwidth neutral. As they're discussing it now, that distinction seems to get lost.
However, there is a good argument to be made for continued content neutrality. I suspect that it's another side effect of the monopolization of local ISP markets - the incentive to provide ever greater bandwidth drops as the ISP becomes the only one, so they start looking for less expensive ways to provide speed where needed and slow down stuff like emails. Optimization of a fixed bandwidth rather than expanding their ability to provide greater bandwidth to meet increased demand for stuff like streaming.
Of course the government would have to regulate it, there is no one else to do so. I'm just not comfortable with how they are talking about doing it. Seems like there may be better ways than just saying "Its a utility". I think a lot of people are overlooking some of the unintended consequences that could come from this - and no, none of those are the FCC shutting down Fox
Well one of us seems to be very confused, and that could well be me. If net neutrality has been the order of the day up til now, how come netflix is paying more for their connection than you are? I suspect its because net neutrality has a very specific meaning, one that politicians can't grasp. Net neutrality has been the order of the day until now in regards to content neutral speed, not bandwidth neutral. As they're discussing it now, that distinction seems to get lost.
However, there is a good argument to be made for continued content neutrality. I suspect that it's another side effect of the monopolization of local ISP markets - the incentive to provide ever greater bandwidth drops as the ISP becomes the only one, so they start looking for less expensive ways to provide speed where needed and slow down stuff like emails. Optimization of a fixed bandwidth rather than expanding their ability to provide greater bandwidth to meet increased demand for stuff like streaming.
Of course the government would have to regulate it, there is no one else to do so. I'm just not comfortable with how they are talking about doing it. Seems like there may be better ways than just saying "Its a utility". I think a lot of people are overlooking some of the unintended consequences that could come from this - and no, none of those are the FCC shutting down Fox
You make very good points and provide rich food for thought.
I too would choose another entity to oversee the neutrality of the internet as all communication and information will stem from it in the future. But I see no other solution than declaring the ISPs common carriers and subject to the same regulations and restrictions as public utilities. Option "A" using the ISPs is off the table as they've already demonstrated how they would loot the system when left in charge of it. If there was another option besides government, I'd go for it.
Government stepped in when TV was first established in the early 50s and it did not hamper in any way the peoples access to TV and the development of the technology.
Aren't the data rates where the differences between a movie and an email become apparent? When your email packets are slow to accumulate you just get a cup of coffee and grumble about slow internet. When you come back with your coffee, there's that email. When it's a movie you can't watch it at all and go do something else - and that problem is more common with streaming because there are waaaaay more packets making one up than making up that email to mom.
Well, you are asking good questions, but you are not understanding certain issues.
In general, with no other constrictions, data packets are delivered on a first come first serve basis.
However, back room equipment can be configured to optimize packet delivery. One does not want a telephone call to be subject to interruption because a large data packet inserts itself in between two voice packets, for example.
Remember that in the telco/isp world, the backbones are all ATM (asynchronous transfer mode). ALL packets are priority queued, and voice comes first. Since the backbones can be gigabits in banddwidth, this is of no concern to most of us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosopis
As far as I know (which I may not - always a possibility ) delivering all those packets that make up a movie to all those people who want to stream at 9 pm when everyone else is also streaming - that requires significantly better equipment from the ISP than making sure your email gets there in one piece. That costs them more money, and since netflix's business depends on your moving being watchable without a bunch of buffering halts, it's in their best interest to provide some of that money to get the faster service.
1) I think you would be surprised at how low the bandwidth requirements for delivering a movie intro your home really is
2) how it works.
It starts with the physical "wire". Most of us have twisted pair copper, and the bandwith limit is 1.5 megabit down. IIRC up can be 1.5 megabit but it is asynchronous. one would need 4 wire to get true 1.5 both ways.
If you have fiber to your home, then your data rates are dependent upon the connecting equipment.
Back office configuration determines what you the end user sees from your side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosopis
Now some regulation is certainly required to prevent the problems that mowhawk was talking about - the digital protection racket where if you don't want to pay they turn you down to the glacial setting. But there are other ways to do that, and I suspect better ones than what is being proposed here - because what is being proposed basically removes a lot of the incentive to seek better and better data rates. As internet usage continues to grow, you will see the negative effects of this by having universally slow and sucky internet.
Exactly! This whole argument is driven by so called free market capitalists who claim that businesses can charge whatever they want, and you, the consumer, can take it or leave it.
IMHO, infrastructure is the key. Roads, bridges, telephone system, telecom/datacom systems are the keys to our prosperity. Too bad some among us want to sabotage that merely to add a few more dollars to their bottom lines.
You make very good points and provide rich food for thought.
Likewise, this has actually been a very enjoyable discussion - a rarity in the politics forum!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
Government stepped in when TV was first established in the early 50s and it did not hamper in any way the peoples access to TV and the development of the technology.
I think this gets back to the differences I alluded to earlier. In the 1950's, it was all broadcast airwaves. Multiple companies provided TV's for sale, and if you didn't like yours you could go buy a different one. Multiple companies could provide content by putting up a transmission station, and you could switch between them. All the government did was ensure that they didn't walk over each other by broadcasting at the same frequencies.
The difference here is that the means of transmission is actually owned by someone - your ISP. "The internet" is not, as far as I know, a network built and maintained by the government - its made up of lots of networks owned by lots of different entities. That is not to say that the government should not be expected to provide some uniformity in standards used, I would just prefer to see a lot more competition than regulation.
This is the reason I see it as more analogous to Bell Systems than TV. They owned the network, they owned the phones in your house (as I'm sure you recall ). It was a monopoly, they charged what they pleased, long distance cost a fortune, and the consumer had 0 other options. Remember the old joke? "We're the phone company - we don't care, because we don't have to." Remember Johnny Fever raving about the "phone cops" - they weren't real, but we all got the joke because it was hyperbole of reality.
I suspect that treating ISP's that provide content as well as delivering it as utilities will just create another situation like the old phone company.
On the other hand, if the dish networks can actually get to the point of providing internet as well as cable does, this will all become a moot point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
