Current Events > A big problem with net neutrality is people not understanding what it is.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating most of the Internet must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.[1] For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content.

Without net neutrality rules in place, ISPs are essentially free to throttle/block/charge money for/etc. access to certain web sites or services.

A very visible thing that happened in recent years was the battle between Netflix and a few ISPs like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T. Customers of those ISPs were reporting lots of slowness issues (buffering, pixelation, etc.). It turned out that the ISPs were actively throttling traffic from Netflix into their networks.

Netflix used to provide average speed comparison data for multiple ISPs.


Back in 2014, Netflix ended up paying Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T to stop throttling their traffic.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/after-netflix-pays-comcast-speeds-improve-65/
http://time.com/80192/netflix-verizon-paid-peering-agreement/
http://time.com/3059431/netflix-att-peering/

Netflix then passed the cost of those payments onto their customers.
https://www.theverge.com/2016/4/11/11410590/netflix-price-increase-hits-longtime-customers-may

This kind of thing is exactly why net neutrality is important to keep. If the internet service industry in the US were truly a free market, there would be a lot more competition that would urge ISPs to stay competitive. What we actually have is ISPs becoming regional monopolies in many areas. Either that or duopolies where they essentially agree to certain things in order to avoid having to compete very much.

They also fight new incoming ISPs hard. Google Fiber had grand plans to shake up the internet industry all over the country, but legal fees because of incumbent ISPs fighting them every step of the way has caused them to slow down or almost halt their expansion plans in many areas.
---

tl;dr words are hard and I don't understand them version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAxMyTwmu_M
---

bump
---

i have lost count of the people who think Net Neutrality is only a few years old.

NO! we have never had an internet without data neutrality. it's how it's been since the very beginning, and the handful of attempts by companies to ignore it over the years got shut down immediately.
---

Medussa posted...

i have lost count of the people who think Net Neutrality is only a few years old.

NO! we have never had an internet without data neutrality. it's how it's been since the very beginning, and the handful of attempts by companies to ignore it over the years got shut down immediately.

That depends on your ISP, really. Comcast has been trying to manipulate transit traffic since at least 2011.
---

Problem with Netflix is that it such a data hog that it clogs up all the rest of the traffic.

Seems like they are treating it like a utility like gas or electricity. Use more or want higher peak demand pay more.
---

DragonGirlYuki posted...

Problem with Netflix is that it such a data hog that it clogs up all the rest of the traffic.

Just for a few ISPs, apparently. Until Netflix pays them.

Pretty much. I asked my dad what he thought about it and he said Net Neutrality is a "millennial buzzword".

So that's what we're looking at for people in their 50s.
---

Use more of the resource pay more. Sounds fair for Netflix.
---

DragonGirlYuki posted...

Problem with Netflix is that it such a data hog that it clogs up all the rest of the traffic.

Seems like they are treating it like a utility like gas or electricity. Use more or want higher peak demand pay more.

It only "clogs up all the rest of the traffic" if the ISP in question isn't maintaining their network well enough to keep up with demand. The amount of network capacity needed is going to grow over time naturally.

Back in the dial-up days, file sizes were relatively tiny. Images had low file sizes. Games fit on floppy disks. 56kbps was generally enough to do anything that you could do on the internet in the mid 90s.

Over time, the need for higher bandwidth became more and more apparent with the increase in file sizes, video streaming, the increase in the quality of video streaming, file sharing, etc. When broadband was first available to residential consumers, 5 Mbps was freaking GREAT. We were streaming videos (relatively low quality compared to today) for the 1st time. Downloads were much quicker. File sizes much larger.

Today, 5 Mbps is terrible. Individual images are commonly larger than that and much more content is on web sites. As I type this on my work laptop, I'm looking at multiple picture ads that load from other sites that have nothing to do with GameFAQs outside of an advertising agreement. If I go on Youtube, I could possibly stream 4K video. Our primary internet connection at work is 500 Mbps down/up. And that's just our public internet connection. Plenty for what we need. If we were trying to run our organization on 5 Mbps down/up, the organization would pretty much cease to function. We have multiple people in marketing uploading and downloading files that are individually multiple gigabytes to cloud storage, sending them back and forth over the internal network, uploading and downloading them over our MPLS network to a data center in Austin, uploading and downloading them over our MPLS network to a data center in Santa Clara, CA.

Network demand is going to keep increasing over time since the things we do on the internet get better and better and file sizes get larger and larger. It's the responsibility of an ISP to upgrade and maintain their network to keep up with the times.
---

ISPs are also often intentionally over-selling their network capacity, then implementing data caps to try to convince people to use less data.

For example, say the core of an ISP's network can handle 10 Tbps. If they end up selling to too many customers, they can end up in a situation where the total amount of bandwidth they agreed to give their customers exceeds 10 Tbps.

What ISPs have done in this situation is not upgrade their network to handle the total amount of bandwidth they agreed to offer to their customer base collectively, but impose data caps to increase the amount of profit they earn on their insufficient network infrastructure.
---

If supply cannot be increased easily or quickly then the other option is to manage demand. Part of the problem is that a fixed fee encourages overusage. A charge based on total consumption like electricity or gas might be better.
---

DragonGirlYuki posted...

If supply cannot be increased easily or quickly then the other option is to manage demand. Part of the problem is that a fixed fee encourages overusage. A charge based on total consumption like electricity or gas might be better.

Agreed, but managing demand is not agreeing to provide a certain amount of bandwidth then not actually offering that amount you agreed to when you realize your network capacity is insufficient.

Managing demand in this situation is understanding how much bandwidth a certain application uses, projecting how much bandwidth that use will grow to in the near future, and planning accordingly.

What some ISPs do, though, is say "Hey, yeah, you can have a 40 Gbps aggregate peering link with us, Netflix." Then when they realize that's too much, it's "Hey, let's secretly throttle traffic coming from that 40 Gbps peering link so that it doesn't clog up our insufficient network."
---

lol
---

The promised speeds say it is a maximum rather than average. Customer expectations might be unrealistic. You can't expect short travel times during rush hour traffic.
---

DragonGirlYuki posted...

The promised speeds say it is a maximum rather than average. Customer expectations might be unrealistic. You can't expect short travel times during rush hour traffic.

Actually, the promised speeds are a maximum with a service level agreement of generally around 70 to 80% of the maximum bandwidth offered.

For example, I have Google Fiber. If I do a speed test and get 1000 Mbps / 1000 Mbps, that's the max and I'm happy. If I do a speed test and get 850 Mbps / 850 Mbps, that's within the SLA. If I do a speed test and get 500 Mbps / 500 Mbps, I'm not hurting, but Google Fiber guarantees at least 70% per their max offered, so I can call to have them fix that either through troubleshooting or a service call.
---

It really depends on the fine print of your contract. But to expect peak speeds during peak times is unrealistic. It is like driving during rush hour expecting an empty freeway and getting mad when you are stuck in bumper to bumper traffic.
---

DragonGirlYuki posted...

It really depends on the fine print of your contract. But to expect peak speeds during peak times is unrealistic. It is like driving during rush hour expecting an empty freeway and getting mad when you are stuck in bumper to bumper traffic.

I'm telling you how the contracts are, though. That's what ISPs offer in their contracts. A max bandwidth with generally a 70 to 80% SLA. If the bandwidth falls below that agreed SLA, the response from the ISP isn't "Oh, there's just a lot of people using it right now." It's "Let's have our support team troubleshoot with you and if we can't fix it over the phone, we'll send a technician out."

If you call your ISP about slow speeds and the speed you're getting is 85% of your max bandwidth, the response is "That's actually within acceptable levels."
---

If they do not fulfill their agreement then you got a right to complain to them.
---

DragonGirlYuki posted...

If they do not fulfill their agreement then you got a right to complain to them.

And again, the problem here is that some ISPs oversell their network capacity in some areas. This causes them to be unable to fill their agreements with customers on a regular basis. This generates repeated trouble calls into their support team, repeat service tickets generated, etc., which often ends up costing the ISP more than it would have cost to upgrade their network capacity to sufficiently handle the amount of bandwidth they're offering.
---

It's a so simple. Wonder why it took 400 pages to write...?
---

Santorin posted...

It's a so simple. Wonder why it took 400 pages to write...?

It's not simple, actually. The internet is an extremely complex thing as a whole.

For example, explaining everything that happens when you type "Google.com" into a web browser and it brings up a page is many hours of discussion.
---

Sounds like poor management then.
---

DragonGirlYuki posted...

Sounds like poor management then.

Yeah, but since ISPs have essentially been able to buy politicians and essentially write laws to protect themselves, consumers are just forced to deal with it in many areas.
---

CableZL posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating most of the Internet must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.[1] For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content.

Without net neutrality rules in place, ISPs are essentially free to throttle/block/charge money for/etc. access to certain web sites or services.

A very visible thing that happened in recent years was the battle between Netflix and a few ISPs like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T. Customers of those ISPs were reporting lots of slowness issues (buffering, pixelation, etc.). It turned out that the ISPs were actively throttling traffic from Netflix into their networks.

Netflix used to provide average speed comparison data for multiple ISPs.


Back in 2014, Netflix ended up paying Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T to stop throttling their traffic.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/after-netflix-pays-comcast-speeds-improve-65/
http://time.com/80192/netflix-verizon-paid-peering-agreement/
http://time.com/3059431/netflix-att-peering/

Netflix then passed the cost of those payments onto their customers.
https://www.theverge.com/2016/4/11/11410590/netflix-price-increase-hits-longtime-customers-may

This kind of thing is exactly why net neutrality is important to keep. If the internet service industry in the US were truly a free market, there would be a lot more competition that would urge ISPs to stay competitive. What we actually have is ISPs becoming regional monopolies in many areas. Either that or duopolies where they essentially agree to certain things in order to avoid having to compete very much. Lots of people only have 1 or two choices.

In the above example, if your only one or two choices are between Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T, then it doesn't really matter if you don't want your ISP to throttle Netflix. You don't really have a choice but to deal with it.

They also fight new incoming ISPs hard. Google Fiber had grand plans to shake up the internet industry all over the country, but legal fees because of incumbent ISPs fighting them every step of the way has caused them to slow down or almost halt their expansion plans in many areas.

So, you're saying that, since the government forces ISP monopolies on the public, we need the government to regulate the internet?

You ever hear of Stockholm syndrome?
---

darkjedilink posted...

So, you're saying that, since the government forces ISP monopolies on the public, we need the government to regulate the internet?

You ever hear of Stockholm syndrome?

The ISPs are the ones forming regional monopolies/duopolies, not the government.
---

darkjedilink posted...

So, you're saying that, since the government forces ISP monopolies on the public, we need the government to regulate the internet?

You ever hear of Stockholm syndrome?

The government already enforces monopolies for other utilities such as electricity. They're do it because it would be stupid to have dozens of lines from competing companies connected to different competing plants. But they also regulate the price and prohibit bias in service.
---