FCC orders net neutrality repeal

[leadeater]

18 minutes ago, Mail me to the Moon said:

A simple example would be fastlanes based on ports and protocols. It ain't complex dude, power users can still get around it but you can easily throttle their traffic.

 

There are many ways to go about it, and with comcast being the only provider in a lot of areas it ain't hard to make standards.

That's not how it works on the internet, ISP 1 doesn't give a crap what ISP 2 does or says how important data is so if you are accessing a Netflix server who pairs with ISP 2 but you're with ISP 1 how is the fast lane going to work? It ain't.

[Mail me to the Moon]

12 minutes ago, leadeater said:

That's not how it works on the internet, ISP 1 doesn't give a crap what ISP 2 does or says how important data is so if you are accessing a Netflix server who pairs with ISP 2 but you're with ISP 1 how is the fast lane going to work? It ain't.

 

Edit: Wait let me think this through. It's too late for this stuff.

 

Fastlanes are used to prioritize network traffic. It's basically done to free up load on the isp's end. So they would still have a use as local congestion is usually where the infrastructure is the worst.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Mail me to the Moon said:

You know what. You're right. I ain't thinking straight.

It's not that QoS is hard or anything, the issue is when you have to cross networks under the control of different entities since you loose control over that data flow from that point on so you can promise all you like to a customer that they are in a fast lane but really you can't guarantee anything outside of your own network. It's fine when you are within a single network but that's rare even in the US where there are only a few large ISPs.

 

The fast lane is really going to be a contract between the ISP and the content provider which happens now but without an extra fee for used network bandwidth or a fee passed on to the consumer. Netflix already puts CDN servers in ISP server rooms which is the 'fast lane', but now ISPs want to charge end customers for it essentially clipping the ticket. This matter should only be between the content provider and the ISP, you shouldn't have to pay for it but the content provider should and it's up to them to pass that cost on to their customers if they wish at the rate they deem necessary.

[Mail me to the Moon]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

It's not that QoS is hard or anything, the issue is when you have to cross networks under the control of different entities since you loose control over that data flow from that point on so you can promise all you like to a customer that they are in a fast lane but really you can't guarantee anything outside of your own network. It's fine when you are within a single network but that's rare even in the US where there are only a few large ISPs.

 

The fast lane is really going to be a contract between the ISP and the content provider which happens now but without an extra fee for used network bandwidth or a fee passed on to the consumer. Netflix already puts CDN servers in ISP server rooms which is the 'fast lane', but now ISPs want to charge end customers for it essentially clipping the ticket. This matter should only be between the content provider and the ISP, you shouldn't have to pay for it but the content provider should and it's up to them to pass that cost on to their customers if they wish at the rate they deem necessary.

1

Yeah. Though the network should be able to handle that normally. If I remember right it's the front end that needs the loadbalancing. ^ see above for my edit.

 

I am fallin asleep dude, so don't mind me.

[leadeater]

13 minutes ago, Mail me to the Moon said:

Fastlanes are used to prioritize network traffic. It's basically done to free up load on the isp's end. So they would still have a use as local congestion is usually where the infrastructure is the worst.

ISPs actually already do this and is a natural part of network design. An uncontrolled and non prioritized network is actually a bad thing, currently they do this on a customer and protocol basis without (in theory) picking an internet service explicitly and slowing that down i.e. Deprioritizing Netflix.

[Mail me to the Moon]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

ISPs actually already do this and is a natural part of network design. An uncontrolled and non prioritized network is actually a bad thing, currently they do this on a customer and protocol basis without (in theory) picking an internet service explicitly and slowing that down i.e. Deprioritizing Netflix.

2

Oh I see. So the whole net neutrality debate is more focused on throttling individual services?

I'll admit I'm a bit out of the loop on the thing.

[leadeater]

Just now, Mail me to the Moon said:

Oh I see. So the whole net neutrality debate is more focused on throttling individual services?

I'll admit I'm a bit out of the loop on the thing.

Yea, though it is a confusing topic because it should be a simple problem but the kicker that everyone needs to remember is companies are assholes especially to each other so getting them to play nice is like herding cats lol.

 

[Master Disaster]

15 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It's not that QoS is hard or anything, the issue is when you have to cross networks under the control of different entities since you loose control over that data flow from that point on so you can promise all you like to a customer that they are in a fast lane but really you can't guarantee anything outside of your own network. It's fine when you are within a single network but that's rare even in the US where there are only a few large ISPs.

 

The fast lane is really going to be a contract between the ISP and the content provider which happens now but without an extra fee for used network bandwidth or a fee passed on to the consumer. Netflix already puts CDN servers in ISP server rooms which is the 'fast lane', but now ISPs want to charge end customers for it essentially clipping the ticket. This matter should only be between the content provider and the ISP, you shouldn't have to pay for it but the content provider should and it's up to them to pass that cost on to their customers if they wish at the rate they deem necessary.

Hang on though, I know I'm late but aren't you looking at this backwards?

 

ISPs won't be increasing traffic speed of those who pay, they'll be actively throttling everyone who doesn't pay and throttling is something most ISPs can and do already do.

[Urishima]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Oh you mean Title II? Sorry was thinking you were talking about tiers of ISPs in relationship to network exchanges.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Sorry, I am really fucking tired.

[Mail me to the Moon]

2 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Hang on though, I know I'm late but aren't you looking at this backwards?

 

ISPs won't be increasing traffic speed of those who pay, they'll be actively throttling everyone who doesn't pay and throttling is something most ISPs can and do already do.

That's what I was thinking initially.

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Hang on though, I know I'm late but aren't you looking at this backwards?

 

ISPs won't be increasing traffic speed of those who pay, they'll be actively throttling everyone who doesn't pay and throttling is something most ISPs can and do already do.

Yes exactly, was really demonstrating how they are saying it would work and showing why it wouldn't. If they can't control the data then all they can do is make the stuff they can control slower as they see fit.

 

Edit:

Aka kneecap lane

[Mail me to the Moon]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Yes exactly, was really demonstrating how they are saying it would work and showing why it wouldn't. If they can't control the data then all they can do is making the stuff they can control slower as they see fit.

Which brings us back to why it works for services such as skype.

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, Mail me to the Moon said:

Which brings us back to why it works for services such as skype.

VoIP services are given a higher priority over other data types due to it being audio. Also Microsoft operates their own private network across the global so when you're using a Microsoft service the data goes from your house to the closest entry point in to their network and from there Microsoft has 100% control of it until the exit point back on to the main internet.

 

Edit:

Quote

Customer traffic enters our global network through strategically placed Microsoft edge nodes, our points of presence. These edge nodes are directly interconnected to more than 2,500 unique Internet partners through thousands of connections in more than 130 locations. Our rich interconnection strategy optimizes the paths that data travels on our global network. Customers get a better network experience with less latency, jitter, and packet loss with more throughput. Direct interconnections give customers better quality of service compared to transit links, because there are fewer hops, fewer parties, and better networking paths.

https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/how-microsoft-builds-its-fast-and-reliable-global-network/

Edited February 24, 2018 by leadeater

[ARikozuM]

NZ and Australia have so many things that can kill ISPs decided to sit themselves out. @leadeater @mr moose

 

In my area of Florida, I have two choices: Spectrum (currently providing) and Frontier. Frontier has quite a few brownouts and Spectrum raises their prices every month (currently 174/month for 100/10). 

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

NZ and Australia have so many things that can kill ISPs decided to sit themselves out. @leadeater @mr moose

Pff only thing that will kill you here is getting drunk and being stupid lol. We have like one actually dangerous spider that is super rare, more likely to die from our crap weather or bad lord of the rings jokes.

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Yes exactly, was really demonstrating how they are saying it would work and showing why it wouldn't. If they can't control the data then all they can do is making the stuff they can control slower as they see fit.

Ahh I gotcha.

 

The thing with saying they're going to increase speeds is that a lot of users are limited by infrastructure and nothing the ISPs can do will make the old copper take more data than it can anyway.

 

I'm also wondering how long it would take for someone in the US to try and sue their ISP because they're paying for 20MBps and only recieving 10MBps on certain services.

[Dabombinable]

2 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Ahh I gotcha.

 

The thing with saying they're going to increase speeds is that a lot of users are limited by infrastructure and nothing the ISPs can do will make the old copper take more data than it can anyway.

 

I'm also wondering how long it would take for someone in the US to try and sue their ISP because they're paying for 20MBps and only recieving 10MBps on certain services.

*The ISPs won't install anything that can take more data than copper anyway.

[Mail me to the Moon]

1 hour ago, Dabombinable said:

*The ISPs won't install anything that can take more data than copper anyway.

Honestly copper scales rather well. We still use it on a majority of existing networks.

You really don't need fiber for high bandwidth.

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, Mail me to the Moon said:

Honestly copper scales rather well. We still use it on a majority of existing networks.

You really don't need fiber for high bandwidth.

Only for short distance though, GPON is cheaper if it weren't for the fact the copper already exists. We're supposed to have all copper phone lines removed completely by 2020, maintenance cost is too high and the service quality is too low (rain/water ingress), and the fibre deployment is wide enough here that copper is quickly becoming the minority or already is in larger towns and cities.

 

It's surprising how far we've come in such a short time, at great cost mind you. Was only a few short years ago the best you could get was ADSL2+ with at best 18/1 if you were really close to the exchange otherwise 9/0.7 was the norm. Now if you want 1Gbps you can get it cheaper than the ADSL2+ connections, $80USD/m unlimited, most ISPs here don't even bother with plans below 100Mbps now.

[Mail me to the Moon]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Only for short distance though, GPON is cheaper if it weren't for the fact the copper already exists. We're supposed to have all copper phone lines removed completely by 2020, maintenance cost is too high and the service quality is too low (rain/water ingress), and the fibre deployment is wide enough here that copper is quickly becoming the minority or already is in larger towns and cities.

 

It's surprising how far we've come in such a short time, at great cost mind you. Was only a few short years ago the best you could get was ADSL2+ with at best 18/1 if you were really close to the exchange otherwise 9/0.7 was the norm. Now if you want 1Gbps you can get it cheaper than the ADSL2+ connections, $80USD/m unlimited, most ISPs here don't even bother with plans below 100Mbps now.

Agreed, but most end users don't need anything more than copper lines to connect to those networks.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

NZ and Australia have so many things that can kill ISPs decided to sit themselves out. @leadeater @mr moose

 

In my area of Florida, I have two choices: Spectrum (currently providing) and Frontier. Frontier has quite a few brownouts and Spectrum raises their prices every month (currently 174/month for 100/10). 

 

It's just the law of averages and the balance of the universe, with everything else here being so  damned good, we have to have dangerous wildlife or other parts of our society would start to fall apart. 

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Mail me to the Moon said:

Agreed, but most end users don't need anything more than copper lines to connect to those networks.

We never had cable services here so the copper service in comparison was much lower, DOCSIS is far and away better than the crap we had. DSL is just downright crap, often not enough for HD Netflix.

[AresKrieger]

12 hours ago, AngryBeaver said:

Look at the legalization of marijuana for one... legal on a state level illegal on a federal level.

That doesn't make it legal, what was making it legal was a federal decree stating that they would not enforce it temporarily, federal law supersedes state law

Quote

10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This ^ means that anything not arbitrated by the federal government is left to the states, however the civil war the extent of their laws power over that of states, needless to say federal law always*** trumps state law, granted I don't particularly like this however that is how it is. (though it would a bit chaotic otherwise)

 

Now in this particular case no bill was actually signed however unless congress actually does something to negate it net neutrality will not actually apply, the FCC has authority of communications such as the internet any state regulation cannot directly violate this without it being unenforceable (ie lets say a state sues comcast for violating their net neutrality rule, comcast can appeal to a federal court and negate any judgment by the state due to the wording of the regulation)

 

(*** federal law is still subject to the constitution and if a federal law violates this the states can negate that law through the courts, net neutrality does not apply in the exemption}

[Cole5]

Even if this idiocy goes through, ol uncle elon will have his internet sats up in a few years for worldwide wifi, and then comcast goes the way of the dodo 

[AngryBeaver]

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

It's not that QoS is hard or anything, the issue is when you have to cross networks under the control of different entities since you loose control over that data flow from that point on so you can promise all you like to a customer that they are in a fast lane but really you can't guarantee anything outside of your own network. It's fine when you are within a single network but that's rare even in the US where there are only a few large ISPs.

 

The fast lane is really going to be a contract between the ISP and the content provider which happens now but without an extra fee for used network bandwidth or a fee passed on to the consumer. Netflix already puts CDN servers in ISP server rooms which is the 'fast lane', but now ISPs want to charge end customers for it essentially clipping the ticket. This matter should only be between the content provider and the ISP, you shouldn't have to pay for it but the content provider should and it's up to them to pass that cost on to their customers if they wish at the rate they deem necessary.

You don't need to prioritize it from point a to point b. They just need to give it priority on their own network. If they see Netflix traffic on your connection they throttle it to 10mb. If you pay for the fast lane then you get full 150 or whatever you pay for. They only need to give the customer a reason to buy it and claim it is for their fair usage policy.