Anyone upset by this mornings news? Net neutrality gone...

ptilsen

networker050184 wrote: »

How do you think they are going to prioritize these content provider's traffic? When it comes to the bits and bytes QoS is exactly how it is going to be done just like if you bought QoS guarantee for your business today. They will now be selling this to content providers and if you don't think ISPs already put their own traffic in a higher queue you are sorely mistaken.

I'm not against all prioritizing, and QoS specifically can have a place. It's prioritizing certain providers over others that I'd support the FCC in prohibiting. Prioritize VoiP over web, sure, but Skype over Google Talk or Bing over Yahoo or Battle.net over Steam? Not so good.

networker050184 wrote: »

I don't think you are understanding how it is currently set up. Netflix does set up a connection to your ISP and serve directly from there. Netflix peers directly with pretty much every ISP so it's not like you are paying for traffic that comes from Verizon to be prioritized on Comcast etc.

Netflix specifically and other large providers do connect directly to improve speed and CDNs have been a thing since before net neutrality was a big issue, but it's not just Netflix and Google we're talking about; it's everyone. Besides, even the large providers don't connect directly to every ISP. The fact that some connect to many or most doesn't make this a non-issue or not a potentially drastic change in how the Internet operates.

ptilsen

networker050184 wrote: »

That is completely far fetched and hypothetical. No ISP is going to block Netflix just because they provide a similar service.

You recognize that Comcast is one of the largest content owners in the world and one of the largest ISPs as well, right? It's not at all far-fetched. Comcast probably loses far more money competing with Netflix than it would from cutting Netflix off.

networker050184 wrote: »

Will they give their service higher priority on their own network? Of course, it's their network. They will allow Netflix to pay for similar service though. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do that? The courts agree with that and I can see why.

Again, that's anticompetitive and anti-consumer. I'm paying for Internet access of a certain speed, not speeds based on what content providers have made what deals with my ISP. If we had some amazing market with ten ISPs to choose from because their lines were laid in some other dimension and cost nothing so they could exist, great, fine, we've suddenly got enough competition that we don't need to restrict what they do. The reality is that as a consumer with certain needs, my choices are very, very limited. Comcast can hike their rates, reduce their service, block content providers, services, and protocols entirely, and as long as I can afford it and the service is still worth it to me, I'll stick around, because there's simply no one else providing it for me. This is the reality for most Americans. Some lucky few get a cable and fiber provider or have a decent DSL provider, but in most cases we're stuck with one provider if we want high-speed Internet.

DevilWAH

ptilsen wrote: »

This really has very little to do with prioritizing protocols for quality or class of service. It's about prioritizing specific content providers and making extra money off of content providers who will now essentially have to pay twice to get their content to people, either at all or at the speeds both the provider and consumer were already paying for.

Um that sounds like quality of service to me. No where dis I say it high priority traffic is defined as a protocol (although I did use VoIP as an example). I prioritise all IT staffs and Directors internet traffic, (and some key workers) over all other traffic on our outbound links up to a specific % of total bandwidth. High priority traffic is what ever traffic is deemed to fall in the classification, if you are Netflick and your business requirement is for guaranteed bandwidth, why should you not be expected to pay more than a small company running a simple web page who does not really care about speed and latency? you are asking for a different service.

Currently if I want I can rent a internet line with 20:1 contention, or with 1:1 contention and i can have this guaranteed throughout the ISP's network, this is a fixed system of priority and if I chose a contended link I know in times of congestion my traffic might get dropped. This is a method to manage over subscribed backbone lines and allow companies who wish to pay for it to reserve a % of them at the exclusion of all others. This court ruling really just allows them to do the same thing in a more dynamic way.

networker050184

I guess what it comes down to is I don't have a problem with Hulu, Netflix or whoever being able to buy prioritized service. If one company doesn't want to pay for prioritized service that is their choice and they will stay best effort just like they do today.

bermovick

DevilWAH wrote: »

if you are Netflick and your business requirement is for guaranteed bandwidth, why should you not be expected to pay more than a small company running a simple web page who does not really care about speed and latency? you are asking for a different service.

But won't you have to pay for that service to your provider(s), the providers of every one of your customers, and every provider between the two?

networker050184

No, Netflix peers with pretty much every provider with any significant user base. A smaller company may not peer with everyone, but that just leaves them in the same boat they are now. Best effort traffic.

bermovick

I seriously doubt that's the case. I could see them peering with all of the Tier 1 carriers, but not the Tier 2 or Tier 3 ones.

ptilsen

DevilWAH wrote: »

High priority traffic is what ever traffic is deemed to fall in the classification, if you are Netflick and your business requirement is for guaranteed bandwidth, why should you not be expected to pay more than a small company running a simple web page who does not really care about speed and latency? you are asking for a different service.

You should be expected to pay more, and you already are. You need more bandwidth, more connections to more ISPs, a larger CDN to run a larger content service on the Internet, and you already pay for it. The more customers you need to reach in more locations, the more you pay. There's no reason you should have to also pay for the consumer's priority on their own line. The consumer is already paying for bandwidth and should get the choice of what they want to do with their own bandwidth, just as the provider is already paying for its bandwidth. It's not like this is Netflix vs. small web providers, either. The ISP can charge the small web provider for access to its customers, too, even though that provider is already paying for whatever class of Internet it deemed sufficient to provide content to its customers.

It's really not analogous to providing higher speeds to more valuable resources (be it a CEO or an email server) within a business. That's already done on the larger Internet. We already pay more for more bandwidth, better reliability, and lower latency.

DevilWAH wrote: »

Currently if I want I can rent a internet line with 20:1 contention, or with 1:1 contention and i can have this guaranteed throughout the ISP's network, this is a fixed system of priority and if I chose a contended link I know in times of congestion my traffic might get dropped. This is a method to manage over subscribed backbone lines and allow companies who wish to pay for it to reserve a % of them at the exclusion of all others.

We can do that here as consumers, too, although we generally don't have choices because we have few providers and they have no incentive to give this choice. This ruling doesn't permit providers from offering services like this; they already can and do. What makes no sense is if I've already purchased a guarantee for a certain level of uncongested service with my ISP and so has my content provider with its ISP that they should also pay my ISP (or I theirs) for something we're both already purchasing.

DevilWAH wrote: »

This court ruling really just allows them to do the same thing in a more dynamic way.

No, not at all. It allows them to charge both the consumer and the provider more for services they're both already paying for, but in a targeted, discriminatory, arbitrary way.

DevilWAH

ptilsen wrote: »

or at least charge Netflix as much as it's willing and able to pay.

This is exactly it, as much as it is willing/able to pay. This is what will be the control, netflick is a worldwide provider, lets say Comcast decide to block netflick, or charge them silly amounts. Netflix goes talking to the next 3 biggest ISP, and with them has an agreement to provide netflick free for 12 months to all there customers for a % of profites from all 3 ISP's as long as they provide guaranteed service quality. A few million users jump ship from Comcast and move to get the free NEtflix. For the first 12 months all 3 ISP and Netflick are actually working at a loss, but as the numbers build up they start to break even. Mean while Comcast are having some cash flow issues as their budgets are not balancing and the profits are lower then expected meaning there service is not maturing as quickly as they had hoped. Now after 24 months Netflick and its 3 ISP have a huge user base and start to introducing costs. For a while these are much lower than Comcast and people stick with it. Mean while Comcast has recovered from the loss of users and now dropped its prices to entice people back. This battle along with countless others continues as deals and double deals are done as one company tries to climb to the top. Some fall by the way side and others experience brief periods of leading.

Companies cant afford to get it wrong, even once can mean there downfall even of the very biggest companies, its all politics and posturing. he ISP's are only part of the chain and there are far bigger fish pushing them around and dictating what they do.

networker050184

ptilsen wrote: »

No, not at all. It allows them to charge both the consumer and the provider more for services they're both already paying for, but in a targeted, discriminatory, arbitrary way.

No it doesn't. It allows them to charge for higher levels of service to the content providers.

networker050184

bermovick wrote: »

I seriously doubt that's the case. I could see them peering with all of the Tier 1 carriers, but not the Tier 2 or Tier 3 ones.

They do peer with the tier 2 and 3 providers. Maybe not every single one, but it is advantageous to both the provider and Netflix to set up a private peering. It allows them both to save significant money on transit costs. They have a presence in pretty much every public exchange too.

colemic

'...at least charge Netflix as much as they are willing to pay...' I guarantee you, YOU - the consumer - will be paying that fee in the form of higher prices. It won't be any skin off of Netflix since they will simply pass the cost on directly to the consumer and then be able to point the finger right back at the ISP.

DevilWAH

bermovick wrote: »

But won't you have to pay for that service to your provider(s), the providers of every one of your customers, and every provider between the two?

No because it will be in Providers interest to set up frameworks between them selves to manage this. At the moment I can pay my provided to guaranteed traffic with in its own network. Now I would expect they will get together so I can purchase a package that insures my traffic is prioritised end to end.

So I can chose a package such as

1:20 with in MY ISP
1:1 with in my ISP with best effort across external ISP's
1:1 with in my ISP Guaranteed priority across external ISP.

but now you can break it up even further, saying I want 80% best effort (cheaper) and 20% (costly), of the 20% high priority I want half of that only priorities with in the ISP (to go to my branch sites) and the other 10% out to my customers for when they stream videos so across all ISP's. for some business this is very attractive and might save them costs.

This model is not some thing new, just an extension to the levels of services we can already get.

We can say how they will implement it, but the chances are a simplified frame work will surface as other wise it gets to complex. So many interlinks and redundancy that with out a framework it would be impossible to manage as an end user. I dont know who ISP's my data from my home goes to get to netflick, I can't make agreements with all possible ISP's.

It has to be said what's the point of being able to buy dedicated bandwidth with in an ISP if you cant control it after that?

DevilWAH

colemic wrote: »

'...at least charge Netflix as much as they are willing to pay...' I guarantee you, YOU - the consumer - will be paying that fee in the form of higher prices. It won't be any skin off of Netflix since they will simply pass the cost on directly to the consumer and then be able to point the finger right back at the ISP.

no they wont, if netflick put up there prices above there competitors they will lose the customers. It goes back to "100% of nothing is still nothing", what ever happens a service still has to be competitive to survive.

colemic

I flat out disagree. The minute they pay higher costs it will be pushed back to consumers to foot the bill. Of that I have no doubt whatsoever.

DevilWAH

networker050184 wrote: »

They do peer with the tier 2 and 3 providers. Maybe not every single one, but it is advantageous to both the provider and Netflix to set up a private peering. It allows them both to save significant money on transit costs. They have a presence in pretty much every public exchange too.

But image how much they could save with this new ruling? only peering with one or two providers, but guaranteeing there services across others as well. Less hardware costs, less management costs, less over heads... Yes a provider might lose out if it does not have a direct connection, but it will still take a % of the cost to prioritise the traffic passing across it to its customers, and once the network is configured its cheap money. If netflick is peering with the Tier one providers, this could be nice for the Tier 2 and 3.

OK I am not saying its the best news I have ever heard this ruling, but here is a lot of possibilities here both good and bad. With in companies QOS is a big money saver, no reason it can't have the same effect for the ISP's

DevilWAH

colemic wrote: »

I flat out disagree. The minute they pay higher costs it will be pushed back to consumers to foot the bill. Of that I have no doubt whatsoever.

So netflick will price them selves out of the market?

bermovick

How would they price themselves out of the market? They aren't in a bubble where Hulu, Vudu, Amazon Prime, etc aren't ALSO increasing prices to have high priority bandwidth (or risking losing market share due to shoddy service), and possibly competing with cable providers that have their own streaming service and can now deliver the service more cheaply.

networker050184

They already can deliver their own service more cheaply because they don't have to pay transit it from another network.

bermovick

That's a good point, and this is a really interesting conversation, I must admit.

The "pro" side is making some really good points here, and I can see how this is good for companies that are willing/able to pay for the priority service, and especially for the providers, I can't see how this won't immediately be abused.

Also I'm a bit curious how providers will be able to guarantee certain amounts of service, considering the practice of oversubscribing lines - after all "what's the point of being able to buy dedicated bandwidth with in an ISP if you cant control it after that?"

From a consumer perspective, I can't see how this can be seen in a good light at all.

networker050184

It's good from the consumer because your Netflix packets (assuming Netflix pays) will no longer have to sit in a queue waiting on your buddies torrent traffic. It will be placed in a higher priority queue that is serviced first.

Now will this translate to a higher cost for the consumer by Netflix pushing the added cost onto them? Possibly, but it will be higher cost for better service, not paying more for the same thing which people are trying to make it out to be.

bermovick

Unless my buddies torrent traffic is legitimate (yes, there are some legitimate uses I've used) and prioritized (perhaps less likely) and I've found vudu to offer a better selection of videos I enjoy (and has decided not to pay for priority traffic in order to have a larger selection)


Ehh - we're throwing out specific examples supporting our case, and all examples are equally valid. I just think having the providers making decisions on what we can or cannot (easily) access using the bandwidth we're paying them for is ... bad?

colemic

networker050184 wrote: »

Now will this translate to a higher cost for the consumer by Netflix pushing the added cost onto them? Possibly, but it will be higher cost for better service, not paying more for the same thing which people are trying to make it out to be.

But what if you are happy with your current HD streaming service, such as Netflix? I would hazard a guess that most people that utilize Netflix are happy with it. Largely because of its cheapness.

networker050184

Well, that is an argument to have with Netflix not to buy the increased service offering and stick with best effort. It's not an argument against the ISP for providing it.

That is what I think people are missing about this. It will be the ISPs offering a new product of better streaming for the content providers and not a degradation of the content providers current service. Will the content that uses the better, more expensive service run better for the consumer? Of course. You get what you pay for as they say.

networker050184

bermovick wrote: »

Ehh - we're throwing out specific examples supporting our case, and all examples are equally valid. I just think having the providers making decisions on what we can or cannot (easily) access using the bandwidth we're paying them for is ... bad?

It's already done today. You think your ISPs VoIP service sits in the same queue as your torrent traffic? Or do you think your internet traffic sits in the same queue as a business class customer that buys 'gold' service? No not at all.

colemic

But the point you're not getting, is that there isn't anything stopping it from *becoming* a degradation of service. Pay to play, or don't play at all. What would an ISP care if customers get pissed with Netflix because Netflix doesn't want to pay the extortion?

bermovick

To followup to colemic's post, if the court case I found was the case that began this, that was exactly what happened -- torrent traffic got marked down because of it being torrent traffic.

networker050184

colemic wrote: »

But the point you're not getting, is that there isn't anything stopping it from *becoming* a degradation of service. Pay to play, or don't play at all. What would an ISP care if customers get pissed with Netflix because Netflix doesn't want to pay the extortion?

I don't really see how that matters in this case. I keep coming back to the business class internet argument is the same thing. Should an ISP not be able to sell business class internet with QoS guarantees because it will cause possible degradation for the business that doesn't buy it? No one seems to have a problem with that, but when it comes to their streaming movies at home it is suddenly some big deal.

--chris--

The info and opinions in this thread = mind blowing. In a good way.

I had read hours on this topic over the years, but it wasn't until reading this thread I was able to get a grasp on the core of it.

eansdad

Should they be able to sell a hire class of service ... yes. Should they be allowed to throttle or even block content ... no.