FCC Unveils Plan To Repeal Net Neutrality Rules

[TheCherryKing]

Just now, SansVarnic said:

Laws on this scale in the US have a tendency to trickle down to other countries. It happens more often than not.

Eventually the entire world would be affected. 

[SansVarnic]

2 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

Eventually the entire world would be affected. 

Yes

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

Eventually the entire world would be affected. 

Depends on a lot of things but the reliance on the US for internet content services is far less than 10 years ago. The only way it would effect the rest of the world is if ISPs do implement customer and content restrictive traffic prioritization and/or charging and other ISPs try and do the same, depending on local laws and regulations.

 

All the US is doing is further isolating itself from the rest of the world's internet infrastructure, which has been happening for a long time, so anyone not on the North American continent has little to worry about.

 

AWS, Google, Azure etc all have large numbers of datacenters around the world placed in optimal locations and that is where the the majority of all internet content is served from, the closest datacenter. Private businesses are also changing how they deliver their content to customers, most of them used cloud hosted services either directly with or a reseller of one of the major public cloud providers. It won't be long until all connections in and out of the US could be turned off and anyone not in the US wouldn't notice or need to care.

[TheCherryKing]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Depends on a lot of things but the reliance on the US for internet content services is far less than 10 years ago. The only way it would effect the rest of the world is if ISPs do implement customer and content restrictive traffic prioritization and/or charging and other ISPs try and do the same, depending on local laws and regulations.

 

All the US is doing is further isolating itself from the rest of the world's internet infrastructure, which has been happening for a long time, so anyone not on the North American continent has little to worry about.

 

AWS, Google, Azure etc all have large numbers of datacenters around the world placed in optimal locations and that is where the the majority of all internet content is served from, the closest datacenter. Private businesses are also changing how they deliver their content to customers, most of them used cloud hosted services either directly with or a reseller of one of the major public cloud providers. It won't be long until all connections in and out of the US could be turned off and anyone not in the US wouldn't notice or need to care.

So only North America would be affected? 

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

So only North America would be affected? 

Well that also depends because most traffic/content would have staid within the US anyway. It's only a hypothetical anyway since in that scenario you could no longer update the US datacenters form outside the US and vice versa, it would be a huge problem just not immediately. The people that would notice would be video/audio calling.

[Ithanul]

40 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

It doesn't matter how we define it.  If they can't provide what they promise then they need to promise something different.  If they need to slice up the speeds into time blocks and offer packages like that then so be it, but the problem is they aren't.  It's got nothing to do with users using more than their fair share, it's ISP's not managing their product.

You must miss the wording of "up to" in the contracts and advertisements.

 

3 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Laws on this scale in the US have a tendency to trickle down to other countries. It happens more often than not.

Which don't surprise me one bit.

I get to see some of the gov/military side of IT and networking.  The way it is utilized and hooked up to partner nations greatly affects how each play ball with each other.  So, laws in the States tend to affect fellow partner nations a bit.

 

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

All the US is doing is further isolating itself from the rest of the world's internet infrastructure, which has been happening for a long time, so anyone not on the North American continent has little to worry about.

O my...how far from the truth you be on that.

I can't say much for civi side, but gov/military, o my, o my, if anything the connections are growing.  That as much I will say on it.

[vanished]

27 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Laws on this scale in the US have a tendency to trickle down to other countries. It happens more often than not.

Generally that's true but our current... whoever is in charge of this has taken a strong stance and put this issue to bed quite a while ago.  If it was to come to us, it won't be for quite some time.

[leadeater]

31 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Never saw anything that supports what you said about a package from 2 connected peers to travel that far to be routed. Do you have any study or proof of that? It simply doesn't make sense.

The proof is that is actually how it works, just ring your ISP and ask who is the back-haul or peering provider or who's network they are actually reselling. It's even fundamental to how the internet works, have a look at the internet infrastructure maps and ISP tier relationship diagrams.

 

You can even prove it yourself, ping someone you know then ping a speedtest node. The speedtest (latency closest) node will always have a lower latency than even the house next door. You also have to remember that internet doesn't work on routed hops like you may be thinking, it's mostly MPLS packet switched which is something you cannot see with traceroute since MPLS is layer 2. @Lurick would likely be a better person to explain this.

 

It's not just some theory I made up, I work in the IT industry as I've noted before and have to work with the companies and people that actually design the internet infrastructure here. If you want an optimized point-to-point connection between two networks you have to pay for an MPLS VPN which costs huge sums of money, not something a residential customer needs.

 

The internet isn't just a large scale network that is similar to a large corporate network, there are some huge fundamental differences in design and operation.

[leadeater]

17 minutes ago, Ithanul said:

O my...how far from the truth you be on that.

I can't say much for civi side, but gov/military, o my, o my, if anything the connections are growing.  That as much I will say on it.

True but from my home internet usage I don't really care about gov/mil connections . I'm fully aware that all our NZ bases the network is controlled and operated from the US and we have to comply with US military rules.

 

Edit:

Not that any of those connections happen over the internet like we are talking about though.

[SansVarnic]

Bit old but this is the backbone of  the internet in the State I live in.

What you see is all fiber. Aureon (FKA INS) is the largest in the US.

 

Its funny because what we have access at the home level is either Cable or DSL, the only ones with direct access to the fiber is large business, Medical centers, Schools and Government. There is no (with some rare exception) residential access.

 

*edit

as a matter of fact this is why we have alot of major data centers here, Last I counted we have 7(i think) from Microsoft, one with 5 separate buildings from FaceBook (still being developed), several others from other companies I cannot recall. Ay least 20+ spread around the City of Des Moines and few in Davenport, Cedar Rapids and Souix City. Iowa is the "secret" Silicon Valley of the Midwest.

Edited December 2, 2017 by SansVarnic

[TheCherryKing]

33 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Bit old but this is the backbone of  the internet in the State I live in.

What you see is all fiber. Aureon (FKA INS) is the largest in the US.

 

Its funny because what we have access at the home level is either Cable or DSL, the only ones with direct access to the fiber is large business, Medical centers, Schools and Government. There is no (with some rare exception) residential access.

 

*edit

as a matter of fact this is why we have alot of major data centers here, Last I counted we have 7(i think) from Microsoft, one with 5 separate buildings from FaceBook (still being developed), several others from other companies I cannot recall. Ay least 20+ spread around the City of Des Moines and few in Davenport, Cedar Rapids and Souix City. Iowa is the "secret" Silicon Valley of the Midwest.

Where did you get the map?

[mr moose]

52 minutes ago, Ithanul said:

You must miss the wording of "up to" in the contracts and advertisements.

 

I think you are confusing line speed limitations with intentional ISP throttling.  There is no intentional throttling of speed by majority of Australian RSP's (ISP's of the NBN) while you have not breached your data cap.

[mr moose]

Interesting, the debate has gotten as far as Canadian Music producer/youtuber's now.

 

 

 

Good to see the basic premise isn't lost on those who aren't overly tech guys.

[leadeater]

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Interesting, the debate has gotten as far as Canadian Music producer/youtuber's now.

 

Good to see the basic premise isn't lost on those who aren't overly tech guys.

Funny how traditional cable companies that are also ISPs want to turn internet access in to a similar model as cable TV... it's as if it's their core business model or something.

 

Slightly off topic but it baffles me how people can be so outraged at micro-transactions in games and any hint of it true or not generates immense hate but when the same concept might apply to internet access, true or not, suddenly free market is the answer which is the same ecosystem that brought about micro-transactions in games. Just an interesting observation.

[jagdtigger]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Slightly off topic but it baffles me how people can be so outraged at micro-transactions in games and any hint of it true or not generates immense hate but when the same concept might apply to internet access, true or not, suddenly free market is the answer which is the same ecosystem that brought about micro-transactions in games. Just an interesting observation.

Because people only understand what they experienced themselves... They have some experience from before NN but they got brainwashed over the years by ISP's how NN is bad for innovation and etc... Apparently many consumers have a very short memory or think that this wont affect them.

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

ISPs charging more because of Netflix seems just fine to me. If you're going to use 40%~70% (average and peak) of the ISP infrastructure, you're going to pay more, and that is it. Don't like it? Then optimize your software to reduce the traffic.

I'd just like to point out that there is nothing in the net neutrality laws which would prevent ISPs for charging people who use their infrastructure more to pay more.

I don't agree that people who use the service they paid more should pay more (should people who watch TV 5 hours a day pay more for each channel than people who watch 3 hours a day?) but if you believe that then fine.

 

What is not OK under NN law is to look at the content of the traffic and make distinctions based on that.

 

OK to say with NN laws in place:
"You are using 50% more bandwidth than our average customer, so you need to pay more".

 

Not OK to say with NN laws in place:

"You are watching Netflix so therefore you need to pay more".

 

The first one is based on the utilization of the network, regardless of content. The other is based on content, not the utilization of the network.

See the difference? Do you agree that the first one makes sense but the second one doesn't?

 

If you still don't get it then think of it as with water. With "water neutrality" you pay a set amount for each gallon of water you use. Without "water neutrality" you still pay for each gallon you use, but the water companies would charge you more for water depending on what you use the water for.

Do you use the water for drinking? Then it costs X pennies per gallon.

Do you use the water for watering your plays? Then it costs Y pennies per gallon.

Do you use the water for showering? Then it costs Z pennies per gallon.

 

With or without water neutrality you still pay per gallon. The difference is that the water companies can't charge you more for using it for a specific purpose.

 

 

6 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Why don't Netflix cache content of users on their devices and then distribute with P2P? They could save up a lot of bandwidth, reduce traffic on main links of the ISP, cut costs and the list goes on. YouTube could do the same.

That would have 0 effect on the stress put on the ISPs networks. Delivering a video file to your computer requires just as much bandwidth from the ISP to you regardless of if the file is sent from Netflix's servers or from a P2P network. It would reduce the strain on Netflix's servers (which is the reason why some companies use it). The problem here are the ISP networks though, and they would be largely unaffected or if anything, it would have a very negative effect on the network for the reasons explained by leadeater.

 

6 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

I doubt you can find any ISP promising 100% of the bandwidth of your plan 100% of the time.

Mine doesn't promise it, but that's what they deliver. 250Mbps down and 100Mbps up.

I have done speed tests at several different times and I always get around that when I do a speedtest. Sometimes I even get more. I am by not means a light user either, hovering at around 1TB of data a month. Maybe I am spoiled by the great ISPs here in Sweden, but I find it sad that people not only expect but is also completely accepting that their network gets slow at different times of the day. Imagine if you couldn't shower or use the toilet at certain times of the day because there wasn't enough water in the pipes.

[dalekphalm]

11 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

ISPs charging more because of Netflix seems just fine to me. If you're going to use 40%~70% (average and peak) of the ISP infrastructure, you're going to pay more, and that is it. Don't like it? Then optimize your software to reduce the traffic.

As others have pointed out, using MORE traffic isn't the problem. The problem is arbitrarily deciding "Netflix" is the problem.

 

So if I use Netflix once per month to watch a 2 hour movie, I should pay more than the guy who downloads non-stop over Usenet?

 

Many ISP's already have Data Caps for that exact purpose. You want to use more bandwidth in a month? Pay for a higher cap. But throttling or charging more based on content, rather than traffic, is morally wrong.

 

Also Netflix Cache Servers make a HUGE DIFFERENCE in preventing network congestion. Most major congestion happens when all the traffic on the ISP network is trying ti peer with another network anyway. Keeping all traffic INSIDE the ISPs own network would actually help substantially.

 

This is why Netflix installs Cache servers in most major ISPs. Using P2P wouldn't likely make that any better, since all traffic is getting routed by the ISP anyway. Why keep routing that traffic even further (Eg: to your neighbour using P2P) when the traffic can simply stop at the ISP routing location w/ the Netflix Cache Server?

[Ithanul]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

I think you are confusing line speed limitations with intentional ISP throttling.  There is no intentional throttling of speed by majority of Australian RSP's (ISP's of the NBN) while you have not breached your data cap.

No, I am talking about most ISP packages in the States where NN applies to.  Right front center on them is "up to" for the declared download/upload speeds.  That been around before and during NN, along with ISPs still throttling streaming or pay extra for a so call "Unlimited" that don't do such an action as throttling.  Pretty much, NN hardly changed much of anything.

 

Seriously, this about NN within the States.  I keep seeing comments from people outside the States saying their Internet is nice.  Well, no darn surprise, you not in the States.  I been outside the States, so yeah, I am aware how some EU countries have nice Internet.  I am also aware there are worst/controlled Internet connections in other countries too.

 

Heck, my ISP provider actually puts blasted tiers on streaming.  No darn joke, if I want 1080P quality, I have to shell out 150 bucks for it.  So, no, NN still does not stop this behavior.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, gabrielcarvfer said:

Netflix is the problem, from the ISP perspective. 70% peak usage of network for a single service is simply terrible for the rest of network.

Data caps doesn't solve peak usage, just average. Charging based on content is not morally wrong when a specific content/service uses most of your infrastructure. In my opinion, some ISPs should even be able to block Netflix traffic if they think that's better for their customers.

If, and only if, the routing doesn't happen closer to users than the ISP location with cache servers, you and leadeater are correct, but I have no proof of that happening and I'm still going to test with few ISPs. 

I'm sure some ISP's have routing before you hit their cache servers. But I'd assume those cases are for when an ISP only has, say, one location with cache servers.

 

For example, I don't think the local neighbourhood Node (DSLAM, etc) in a typical residential ISP will allow P2P routing within that node. My understanding is that all traffic on the node gets routed back to some other routing location. Joe and Jim can't peer just from the node.

 

If I am mistaken about any details, please feel free to correct.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Data caps doesn't solve peak usage, just average. Charging based on content is not morally wrong when a specific content/service uses most of your infrastructure. In my opinion, some ISPs should even be able to block Netflix traffic if they think that's better for their customers.

You're out of your mind.

 

24 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Just tested and, at least on my ISP, it works just like I said, the traffic is routed directly between neighbors without getting out of the subnetwork. So yeah, you can alleviate traffic on main networks by offloading hosting to users, and even the ISP might want to exclude that traffic from cap, as it reduces the load on network.

How did you test this exactly?

[LienusLateTips]

1 hour ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Netflix is the problem, from the ISP perspective. 70% peak usage of network for a single service is simply terrible for the rest of network.

Data caps doesn't solve peak usage, just average. Charging based on content is not morally wrong when a specific content/service uses most of your infrastructure. In my opinion, some ISPs should even be able to block Netflix traffic if they think that's better for their customers.

If, and only if, the routing doesn't happen closer to users than the ISP location with cache servers, you and leadeater are correct, but I have no proof of that happening and I'm still going to test that with few ISPs. 

Think of it like this. They just partnered with let's say, Hulu. Then they block or charge more to for people to watch Netflix. Same high bandwidth, but didn't pay up so no access for you.

[jagdtigger]

51 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

No, I'm not.
 

Yes you are. Someone pays for plan X, then that person should not be charged extra because he utilizes that plan to the extent that he paid for(meaning he (nearly) maxes out its bandwidth). ISP's overselling bandwidth isnt the consumers fault... What you are saying is like a gas station saying to me i have to pay more for the fuel because i drove more than 1000km on that week.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Scanned all nodes on my ISP subnet and on gateways subnet, measured pings and used traceroute on them, on the gateway and its gateway. Even discovered a dude running a SSH server without password...

Can you post the results?

[SansVarnic]

12 hours ago, TheCherryKing said:

Where did you get the map?

From the website when it was still the INS (Iowa Network Services) its now Aureon and the map is not available anymore. Sorry.

 

Best I can do for you,

https://iowanetworkservices.com/blog/fiber-optic-solutions-wired-country - not active site if you click a link it just take you to the new Aureon one.

https://www.aureon.com/services/technology

[LienusLateTips]

1 hour ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Hulu is not using 70% of their network on peak hours, and if it was using, they would probably work together to reduce its traffic as part of the deal.

Still, this gives the ISPs the power to block Netflix and make everyone use Hulu. The bandwidth doesn't matter. It's just if the company pays up.

 

They can block small text only blogs just because they are anti-ISP.