Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The whole bit about Netflix entering into a commercial peering arrangement with Comcast makes a sense as the cost of doing business. As you can imagine, the Netflix bandwidth ain't anything to sneeze at.
But Netflix already pays for the bandwidth they use.
Not quite...
This isn't a simple issue where Netflix pays for "x" bandwidth like you do when you pay your monthly cable bill.
My carrier (Charter) actually host some of Netflix's contents as part of their business model to help keep the uptime for streaming high.
EDIT: tell you what... I'm going fishing this weekend with a couple Charter engineer monkeys... what questions do you have?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/24 20:11:58
How much bandwidth does Netflix average during peak hours?
How much of the above bandwidth comes out of the servers at the colo, and how much of that comes from Netflix's other servers, wherever they might be?
How much bandwidth does a service have to eat up before Charter tries to get the service to engage in one of these agreements?
Should the service refuse, what's the alternative?
How much bandwidth does Netflix average during peak hours?
How much of the above bandwidth comes out of the servers at the colo, and how much of that comes from Netflix's other servers, wherever they might be?
How much bandwidth does a service have to eat up before Charter tries to get the service to engage in one of these agreements?
Should the service refuse, what's the alternative?
Will do!
Look at it this way... (this is how I understand it)...
The net neutrality rule is an attempt to impose “common carrier” regulation, like that imposed on traditional telephone companies, on ISPs.
Such common carrier regulation requires providers to treat all customers equally.... which means not only you and me... but also private content providers (ie, netflix, amazon, espn, etc...).
But the FCC was previously determined by that appellate court case that broadband Internet service is not a common carrier service.
As a result, broadband service providers cannot be subjected to the same common carrier rules.
The ISP is providing a server to NOT only their consumers, but also to OTHER businesses wanting access to those customers.
It's because corporations want your business. Why does the government need it?
I can think of as many uses for various kinds of information gather on the part of the government as for corporations (Metadata is less useful to the government, except to agencies like the CDC and the Census Beauru), but that's not really my point.
A government is beholden to voters to an extent. They can get away with a lot of gak if people don't care but if they rile the mob to much the mob throwns them out. It's a slow process but it works.
Look at the death of net neutrality as an example. The cable companies basically have a government permission to build monopolies, receive huge tax breaks and subsidies to build those monopolies, and now they're managed to goad the FCC into allowing them to charge GM for making cars that go on the highway, and you for driving that car. The FDA has been running a similar scheme between big pharma and food manufacturers for a long time.
People need to stop worrying so much about the hypothetical government doomsday and get their heads on straight. Corporations have gained so much political power they can practically write legislation (like big pharma and the ACA), and unlike politicians, we can't vote shout coroporations out of office. At most they knock the guy on top off the pyramid, apologize, and go back to doing what they were doing.
We can vote with whom we choose for our ISP right now... you may not get what you want, but there are options.
But if you actually read the proposal, the FCC will still require the content providers to:
“to offer a baseline level of service to their subscribers, along with the ability to enter into individual negotiations with content providers,” the official said by email. “In all instances, broadband providers would need to act in a commercially reasonable manner subject to [FCC] review on a case-by-case basis.”
The whole bit about Netflix entering into a commercial peering arrangement with Comcast makes a sense as the cost of doing business. As you can imagine, the Netflix bandwidth ain't anything to sneeze at.
Unfortunately it really depends on your area. In the suburbs yes you can choose sometimes. But not all the time. Because the two ISPs collide with each other for bandwidth which is actually really low for everyone.
It is the only argument I have seen on the opposing side. The argument is flawed in that it assumes that we have that choice in the first place. Most of the time we are confined to one provider, because that one provider rules over certain areas.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
It's because corporations want your business. Why does the government need it?
I can think of as many uses for various kinds of information gather on the part of the government as for corporations (Metadata is less useful to the government, except to agencies like the CDC and the Census Beauru), but that's not really my point.
A government is beholden to voters to an extent. They can get away with a lot of gak if people don't care but if they rile the mob to much the mob throwns them out. It's a slow process but it works.
Look at the death of net neutrality as an example. The cable companies basically have a government permission to build monopolies, receive huge tax breaks and subsidies to build those monopolies, and now they're managed to goad the FCC into allowing them to charge GM for making cars that go on the highway, and you for driving that car. The FDA has been running a similar scheme between big pharma and food manufacturers for a long time.
People need to stop worrying so much about the hypothetical government doomsday and get their heads on straight. Corporations have gained so much political power they can practically write legislation (like big pharma and the ACA), and unlike politicians, we can't vote shout coroporations out of office. At most they knock the guy on top off the pyramid, apologize, and go back to doing what they were doing.
We can vote with whom we choose for our ISP right now... you may not get what you want, but there are options.
But if you actually read the proposal, the FCC will still require the content providers to:
“to offer a baseline level of service to their subscribers, along with the ability to enter into individual negotiations with content providers,” the official said by email. “In all instances, broadband providers would need to act in a commercially reasonable manner subject to [FCC] review on a case-by-case basis.”
The whole bit about Netflix entering into a commercial peering arrangement with Comcast makes a sense as the cost of doing business. As you can imagine, the Netflix bandwidth ain't anything to sneeze at.
Unfortunately it really depends on your area. In the suburbs yes you can choose sometimes. But not all the time. Because the two ISPs collide with each other for bandwidth which is actually really low for everyone.
It is the only argument I have seen on the opposing side. The argument is flawed in that it assumes that we have that choice in the first place. Most of the time we are confined to one provider, because that one provider rules over certain areas.
You're confined to one cableprovider simply because of logistic. Not because there's these fatcats twisting their mustache bribing the localties impose regional monopolites.
Building ISPs isn't cheap and plus they need to have access to "right of ways" of those utility lines. Can you imagine the logistical nightmares on those poles if the local jurisdictions allowed any cable companies to offer services?
The funny thing I've found is that Cable Providers do NOT compete among another. The work together to implement industry standards and such... (Cablelabs is the non-profit group... I think)
They compete against other technologies (ie, Verizon WiFi, Bell DSL, Google Fiber Network™, etc...).
If that Time Warner Cable and Comcast merger get approved, you'll see Comcast will sell many of the TimeWarner regional cable areas to other cable providers. (simply because they don't want the market). For instance, I believe TimeWarner has the Dallas market... Comcast isn't anywhere near there... but, Charter has the FortWorth area... I can see Charter buying the Dallas asset from Comcast. (I may have the cities wrong, but you get my drift).
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/04/24 21:43:16
We can vote with whom we choose for our ISP right now... you may not get what you want, but there are options.
No. There aren't. In most places there are only two options, one of them being a major cable company or a smaller company that uses a major cable company's cables. The other option is usually DISH for TV, or DSL for internet, and both of those services are terrible even for the low cost. Where I live, its Comcast or nothing, because many community organizations find dishes tacky and ban them, or are paid by a major cable company to keep the competition out. Unless you're in a metro area or the surrounding suburbs and towns, you're unlikely to have any options.
So no. There are no options. Comcast and Verizon have spent a lot of time ensuring there aren't.
We can vote with whom we choose for our ISP right now... you may not get what you want, but there are options.
No. There aren't. In most places there are only two options, one of them being a major cable company or a smaller company that uses a major cable company's cables. The other option is usually DISH for TV, or DSL for internet, and both of those services are terrible even for the low cost. Where I live, its Comcast or nothing, because many community organizations find dishes tacky and ban them, or are paid by a major cable company to keep the competition out. Unless you're in a metro area or the surrounding suburbs and towns, you're unlikely to have any options.
So no. There are no options. Comcast and Verizon have spent a lot of time ensuring there aren't.
Wait??? Communities ban dishes??? O.o. That's some f'ed up HOA?..
Hopefully cellular wifi will become more prevalent.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/24 23:42:34
You'd be surprised what neighborhood associations can and can't tell you what to do with your property (it's mostly in suburbs and some 'hip' rural areas). It's officially done to keep property values up, because they say that a dish brings value down, but a lot of times the association is just being paid or cut a deal to keep competition out.
EU parliament enacted the first stage of law around this earlier this month.
They are looking to make it "illegal" for ISPs to do this. It isnt finalised of yet as there are several more legislative stages to go through but we shall see.
Ratius wrote: EU parliament enacted the first stage of law around this earlier this month.
They are looking to make it "illegal" for ISPs to do this. It isnt finalised of yet as there are several more legislative stages to go through but we shall see.
Yeah. I think the united states should follow the EU on this. Seeing as the EU is multitudes of countries, and it might make them seem weak. Plus the united states will always be a european power.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Important to note though, that there seems to be way more choice for ISPs in the EU than US (I cannot substantiate this, only from reading interwebz).
Even in Ireland in relatively remote locations with limited BB infrastructure you will have a choice of 2-3. Might not seem a lot but with legislation to limit monopolies and unfair practice it does mitigate somewhat the problem.
I can see the problem in the US where in more rural locations you have to go with company X or connect a string to a cup.
Dman137 wrote:
goobs is all you guys will ever be
By 1-irt: Still as long as Hissy keeps showing up this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.
Ratius wrote: EU parliament enacted the first stage of law around this earlier this month.
They are looking to make it "illegal" for ISPs to do this. It isnt finalised of yet as there are several more legislative stages to go through but we shall see.
Yeah. I think the united states should follow the EU on this. Seeing as the EU is multitudes of countries, and it might make them seem weak. Plus the united states will always be a european power.
Historically speaking, the US has its closest cultural and social connections to Europe. In this sense when talking about 'European Powers' the US is a reasonable inclusion.
Though in a broad sense, I fail to see why that means we should adopt any given policy simply because others have done it.
Granted the EU at least gets to keep their sensible net management laws, while the res to of are probably in for a few kidney shankings in coming years.
Ratius wrote: EU parliament enacted the first stage of law around this earlier this month. They are looking to make it "illegal" for ISPs to do this. It isnt finalised of yet as there are several more legislative stages to go through but we shall see.
Yeah. I think the united states should follow the EU on this. Seeing as the EU is multitudes of countries, and it might make them seem weak. Plus the united states will always be a european power.
wat?
Ahem. Welcome to world politics. I will be your guide for today.
The United States Contray to popular belief is not a new or global power, it was born from european states, with european ideals, and european systems. Its inhabitants are mostly european and they speak the common language. The United States is european techinically. Like it or not America is New Europe.
LordofHats wrote: Historically speaking, the US has its closest cultural and social connections to Europe. In this sense when talking about 'European Powers' the US is a reasonable inclusion.
Though in a broad sense, I fail to see why that means we should adopt any given policy simply because others have done it.
Granted the EU at least gets to keep their sensible net management laws, while the res to of are probably in for a few kidney shankings in coming years.
Basically. The EU is getting close to becoming unified at least 15% of Europe identifies with being European not the individual states/countries they are in. They are having argument currently whether it should be unified like the united states or separate as it currently is.
Plus the EU has this whole Social system progression going on. That is only thanks to the devastation caused by WW2.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/25 17:03:14
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Ratius wrote: EU parliament enacted the first stage of law around this earlier this month.
They are looking to make it "illegal" for ISPs to do this. It isnt finalised of yet as there are several more legislative stages to go through but we shall see.
Yeah. I think the united states should follow the EU on this. Seeing as the EU is multitudes of countries, and it might make them seem weak. Plus the united states will always be a european power.
wat?
Ahem. Welcome to world politics. I will be your guide for today.
The United States Contray to popular belief is not a new or global power, it was born from european states, with european ideals, and european systems. Its inhabitants are mostly european and they speak the common language. The United States is european techinically. Like it or not America is New Europe.
LordofHats wrote: Historically speaking, the US has its closest cultural and social connections to Europe. In this sense when talking about 'European Powers' the US is a reasonable inclusion.
Though in a broad sense, I fail to see why that means we should adopt any given policy simply because others have done it.
Granted the EU at least gets to keep their sensible net management laws, while the res to of are probably in for a few kidney shankings in coming years.
Basically. The EU is getting close to becoming unified at least 15% of Europe identifies with being European not the individual states/countries they are in. They are having argument currently whether it should be unified like the united states or separate as it currently is.
Plus the EU has this whole Social system progression going on. That is only thanks to the devastation caused by WW2.
We're not European...
Still... if the EU's policy is sound, the FCC may take it up as well. But, it isn't an automatic thing.
Plus the EU has this whole Social system progression going on. That is only thanks to the devastation caused by WW2.
Well, not so sure about that but we digress.
Hey its more than the US. Thanks to the bombing done by the allies, they had to rebuild everything. Roads, cities, bridges. They also had to have social reforms.
Italy I don't know much about other than it changes governments more frequently than a government should. But I digress.
Anyway. The united states should do what the EU did.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Ratius wrote: EU parliament enacted the first stage of law around this earlier this month.
They are looking to make it "illegal" for ISPs to do this. It isnt finalised of yet as there are several more legislative stages to go through but we shall see.
Yeah. I think the united states should follow the EU on this. Seeing as the EU is multitudes of countries, and it might make them seem weak. Plus the united states will always be a european power.
wat?
Ahem. Welcome to world politics. I will be your guide for today.
The United States Contray to popular belief is not a new or global power, it was born from european states, with european ideals, and european systems. Its inhabitants are mostly european and they speak the common language. The United States is european techinically. Like it or not America is New Europe.
Europeans are all just lost and confused Africans who wandered too far from home some amount of time ago.
Ratius wrote: EU parliament enacted the first stage of law around this earlier this month.
They are looking to make it "illegal" for ISPs to do this. It isnt finalised of yet as there are several more legislative stages to go through but we shall see.
Yeah. I think the united states should follow the EU on this. Seeing as the EU is multitudes of countries, and it might make them seem weak. Plus the united states will always be a european power.
wat?
Ahem. Welcome to world politics. I will be your guide for today.
The United States Contray to popular belief is not a new or global power, it was born from european states, with european ideals, and european systems. Its inhabitants are mostly european and they speak the common language. The United States is european techinically. Like it or not America is New Europe.
Europeans are all just lost and confused Africans who wandered too far from home some amount of time ago.
Africans are all humans.
All umans are evolved from other creatures.
By your logic, we are all protozoa.
Your move.
What? I am talking politically and historically, not scientifically..... North = European or developed countries (which are mostly european) and then the south = south americas, central america, africa, middle east, pacific (minus australia and new zealand)
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
What? I am talking politically and historically, not scientifically..... North = European or developed countries (which are mostly european) and then the south = south americas, central america, africa, middle east, pacific (minus australia and new zealand)
Where would you consider Spain on this dichotomy?
I'm interested to hear whether it's Spain, the U.A.E., or somewhere in Africa that you consider to be the father of modern Argentinian politics and history.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And the point I was trying to make earlier with my scientific comparison is that if you choose to, you can pull out the philosophical scalpel and divide humanity at any point along any lines convenient to your particular wishes.
I would argue that we were no longer European when we became independent from a European power. At that point, we continued to have (relatively) close ties with Europe as a whole, keeping the evolution of our politics and culture relatively similar, but still significantly different.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/25 18:07:16
What? I am talking politically and historically, not scientifically..... North = European or developed countries (which are mostly european) and then the south = south americas, central america, africa, middle east, pacific (minus australia and new zealand)
Where would you consider Spain on this dichotomy?
I'm interested to hear whether it's Spain, the U.A.E., or somewhere in Africa that you consider to be the father of modern Argentinian politics and history.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And the point I was trying to make earlier with my scientific comparison is that if you choose to, you can pull out the philosophical scalpel and divide humanity at any point along any lines convenient to your particular wishes.
I would argue that we were no longer European when we became independent from a European power. At that point, we continued to have (relatively) close ties with Europe as a whole, keeping the evolution of our politics and culture relatively similar, but still significantly different.
Hey if it was my way, the UN would rule the entire planet as a supranational power. Where instead we identify as humanity and not just individual countries/states. But sadly that is not the case as it is now.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
What? I am talking politically and historically, not scientifically..... North = European or developed countries (which are mostly european) and then the south = south americas, central america, africa, middle east, pacific (minus australia and new zealand)
Where would you consider Spain on this dichotomy?
I'm interested to hear whether it's Spain, the U.A.E., or somewhere in Africa that you consider to be the father of modern Argentinian politics and history.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And the point I was trying to make earlier with my scientific comparison is that if you choose to, you can pull out the philosophical scalpel and divide humanity at any point along any lines convenient to your particular wishes.
I would argue that we were no longer European when we became independent from a European power. At that point, we continued to have (relatively) close ties with Europe as a whole, keeping the evolution of our politics and culture relatively similar, but still significantly different.
Hey if it was my way, the UN would rule the entire planet as a supranational power. Where instead we identify as humanity and not just individual countries/states. But sadly that is not the case as it is now.
Never going to happen...
At least, not until the Vulcans make their presence known...
What? I am talking politically and historically, not scientifically..... North = European or developed countries (which are mostly european) and then the south = south americas, central america, africa, middle east, pacific (minus australia and new zealand)
Where would you consider Spain on this dichotomy?
I'm interested to hear whether it's Spain, the U.A.E., or somewhere in Africa that you consider to be the father of modern Argentinian politics and history.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And the point I was trying to make earlier with my scientific comparison is that if you choose to, you can pull out the philosophical scalpel and divide humanity at any point along any lines convenient to your particular wishes.
I would argue that we were no longer European when we became independent from a European power. At that point, we continued to have (relatively) close ties with Europe as a whole, keeping the evolution of our politics and culture relatively similar, but still significantly different.
Hey if it was my way, the UN would rule the entire planet as a supranational power. Where instead we identify as humanity and not just individual countries/states. But sadly that is not the case as it is now.
Never going to happen...
At least, not until the Vulcans make their presence known...
It might happen that there is a supranational state. But its not like we will get rid of the country system currently.
But anyway. Lets change topics back to the internet.
Anyone done anything or found any updates on it?
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
What? I am talking politically and historically, not scientifically..... North = European or developed countries (which are mostly european) and then the south = south americas, central america, africa, middle east, pacific (minus australia and new zealand)
Where would you consider Spain on this dichotomy?
Bull killers.
Poor bulls! Do they even make steak out of them? They're probably not even properly Genetically modified corn fed.
Bastards. I mean, Bastardos!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/25 19:30:05
How much bandwidth does Netflix average during peak hours? How much of the above bandwidth comes out of the servers at the colo, and how much of that comes from Netflix's other servers, wherever they might be? How much bandwidth does a service have to eat up before Charter tries to get the service to engage in one of these agreements? Should the service refuse, what's the alternative?
Okay... back from my fishing trip.
Here's the dealio with the Netflix / Comcast ordeal.
Netflix for years used Comcast as a backbone infrastructure without paying for it.
Essentially, what was happening was that Netflix was steaming content thru Comcast's network that were going to non-Comcast customers. That was costing Comcast serious money.
Since MSO (ISPs) are just peer-to-peer networks, these "incestuous" situations occurs all the time... but when it's one of the big boppers on the 'net like NetFlix... then the ISPs will have issues.
Keep in mind, these ISP own their infrastructures. If there was ever any tax breaks / subsidies... they're minisculed compared how much these companies invested their own money (or financed).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/27 22:47:59
I've read what you say. Something that bothers me here is that EVERYONE does that, effectively. If I sent an email to someone in the UK, hypothetically, it doesn't just go from me to Charter to the UK isp and then be done, it has to route through several other providers along the way. No one has had an issue up to this point with that; it's just been the "cost of doing business". Netflix got huge. I'll admit that. The problem is that the terms are all negotiated behind closed doors. How big did Netflix have to get before this became justified? Where are the numbers? If I saw that, I'd probably feel better about it. It doesn't help that there's an obvious conflict of interest in Netflix vs Charter/Comcast here.
Both sides are interesting, and I can see arguments on either side. I'm just bothered by the lack of cold hard numbers defending this action. There are plenty of holes in the Netflix side of things too, and that chart doesn't show some data that I think would be very interesting, like the number of users on Comcast as a comparison.
As far as the subsidies go, I've found stuff from different websites on either side of the argument as well, but both sides sport websites a little too off their meds for me to take seriously.
