Net Neutrality question

[rufus dog]

I have read that Netflix downloads account for 20% of traffic at peak time. How do the ISPs factor this into pricing?

My house would be a high consumer of bandwidth, but shouldn't this just result in direct costs to me regardless of what I am doing to consume the bandwidth?

[Eric J in MN]

1. The rules the FCC passes tomorrow will probably allow...

...the ISPs to charge more to consumers who more bandwidth, as long as it isn't done anti-competitively (example of a theoretical violation: Comcast charges so much to people who use a moderate amount of bandwidth that their internet customers can't afford Netflix usage and have to use cable TV to watch movies.)

[ProudDad]

2. "as long as it isn't done anti-competitively"

Where, oh where is there ANY evidence that "commerce" in the Corporate States of America will not be done "anti-competitively"???

The whole point of the internet is that it's PERFECTLY Socialist...

Every site has equal priority...

Every packet has equal priority...

Everyone is equal...

And we all pay for access...

This execrable sellout to corporate USAmerica will abrogate that bargain...

NOTHING good can come of this...

[Eric J in MN]

3. If most of the customers of an ISP...

...pay $75/month, and the customers who are in the top 1% of heaviest bandwidth consumption pay $100/month, I'd be OK with that.

I'm against paid prioritization of websites.

I'm against letting ISPs block any websites.

[ProudDad]

5. It's not on the USER/consumer side...

it's going to be on the content provider side...

Example...

I put my music up for sale on CD baby...

Sony Records puts their music up for sale on their own servers and pays the protection money to the telcos and cable companies...

You have a high-speed broadband connection...

You want to download an album from the Sony website and it takes a hardly any time at all...it's just as fast as it downloads now...limited only by YOUR connection to the net...

Then you want to download MY Album from CD baby (who can't afford to pay off) and it takes 5 minutes per song because each of the packets that constitutes my album is HELD UP in the telco/cable company's servers!

That's how it's going to work once the camel's nose gets under the tent flap...

[boppers]

13. If a content provider can only pay for 100Mbs, and their competitor pays for 1 Gbs...

That scenario already happened, millions of times over.

[rufus dog]

4. Help me out with one of your points

Because other than one issue this seems easy.

Every site has equal priority...check

Every packet has equal priority...check

Everyone is equal...not so much. Using the NetFlix example, they, I assume, pay for bandwidth based upon their demand. But if I use 4x your usage shouldn't I shoulder more of the costs? Again, regardless of what you or I use the bandwidth on is not relevant.

[ProudDad]

6. It's the TRANSIT speeds, not the connection speed that's the issue...

NOW every packet has the same priority but the new rules will change the landscape by giving some packets more priority than others according to how much the payoff is to the WIRES...

See my post above

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=573829&mesg_id=573866

If it's not clear, I'll try again... :hi:

[boppers]

10. DiffServ (google it)

Not every packet has the same priority. You're thinking the internet of 15/20 years ago. High Bandwidth services, Networks, and Broadband changed all that.

[rufus dog]

11. Very clear, thanks

But what isn't clear is why? Agree that prioritizing traffic would lead to unfair practices. But if the issue was bandwidth, then why not hit up the consumer directly? That way if I had five computers doing nothing but downloading the CDs then I would be hit up, regardless of what site I chose to visit.

[Go2Peace]

20. That is what "Net Neutrality" was supposed to be, and *is* in many countries

You pay based on what you use, like electricity, but nobody gets into your business and tells you what you should and should not do with that "electricity".

[boppers]

23. I agree with you, but let me pose an argument:

Website one is leftist, with lots of graphics, shockwave, etc.
Website two is centrist, but with minimal graphics, shockwave, etc.

Should you pay more to view the leftist website?

[boppers]

7. WRT to Netflix:

Comcast was being paid by Akamai to send all that traffic. Akamai was being paid by Netflix.
Netflix->Akamai->Comcast

Then negotiation time came around, and Level 3 said to Netflix: "Hey, we'll do it cheaper than Akamai charges". Level 3 turned around and told Comcast "we don't want to pay you what Akamai was paying".
Netflix->Level 3->Comcast

Press releases ensued, commissions were convened, and a bunch of silliness about "Comcast charging more for a competitor, Netflix" absurdity surfaced.

As far as high household bandwidth costs, Comcast *could* offer that, but consumers seem to prefer "all you can eat" pricing, and Comcast goes along, hoping that most consumers eat far less than they pay for (to cover those who eat much more than profit margin would allow). If you're willing to pay more (a 1-10 Mbs limitless dedicated connection costs about $1,000 a month, depending on your location), I'm sure someone would be happy to take your money.

[ProudDad]

8. And you're still looking at the wrong end of the telescope...

:shrug:

[boppers]

12. I've been throttling traffic from specific netblocks since 1994.

http://www.countryipblocks.net/e_country_data/KR_range.txt
http://www.countryipblocks.net/e_country_data/CN_range.txt

Huge amounts of spam.

When it's my network, it's my costs, it's my charges, it's my rules. If people don't like it, they can start their own network, and run it the way they want to.

[vaberella]

14. Thanks for your post.

Do you think this support for NN has good stuff? Most are pedaling it's bad.

[boppers]

17. It's a great *concept*, but implementation is tricky.

Trying to impose rules often has unforseen consequences, and much of the public battle has not focused on actual details, but dumbed-down metaphors more designed to appeal to consumers than the people who actually work on this stuff.

[Eric J in MN]

15. Stopping that traffic from reaching whom?

...employees of one company, or thousands of retail customers?

[boppers]

18. Both, and neither.

If you are transiting through my network to another one, or if your endpoint was in my network, I'm not going to watch pointless spam flood through at the same rate as teleconferencing.... but since I was only one of millions of BGP points who peered with Sprint and Level 3, chances are that I didn't get a lot of legitimate traffic for any external retail customers.

[dkf]

9. We as a country are going to be held back by these greedy pigs.

What a Ripoff.

[vaberella]

16. Can you post your thoughts on NN in a seperate thread so I can see your arguments clearer? n/t

[boppers]

21. As asked:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x573948

It's a chunk of the arguments, with some history.

[Go2Peace]

19. They don't need to "factor it". You pay for xMB down and up. If they cannot give you

what you paid for then they should be sued for false advertising.

The answer is very simple and it is ALREADY in place, tiered pricing.

No, this is about controlling content pure and simple.

[boppers]

22. You didn't read the fine print.

Chances are, you don't pay for xMb. You pay for burstable xMb, not sustained xMb.

If you are paying over a thousand a month for your link, I may be wrong... unless you're only paying a thousand a month for 1Gb of data, in which case I have to change my numbers.