If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   Oh hey look, Time Warner all of the sudden cares about network neutrality   (arstechnica.com) divider line 105
    More: Obvious, Time Warner, Netflix, net neutrality, Google Fiber, Virgin Media, Competitive Enterprise Institute, ISPs, download speeds  
•       •       •

8566 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Jan 2013 at 3:34 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



105 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-17 06:01:39 PM

phyrkrakr: So, net neutrality is all about allowing content to travel freely over any wire without the end user having to pay extra, right?


Net neutrality is about not favoring any particular website. It's like the 1st amendment's establishment clause.
 
2013-01-17 06:04:08 PM

Kimpak: Netflix is going to have to do something soon though, as more and more ISP's adopt data caps. Its only a matter of time, data caps are here and are not going away.


Which is bullshiat, because bandwidth gets cheaper every day.
 
2013-01-17 06:06:20 PM

jayhawk88: Pocket Ninja: For all intensive purposes, subby, it really doesn't matter alot if you say "all of the sudden" instead of "all of a sudden." But visa vee strict grammar rules, only one is technically correct.

Irregardless...


I prefer irredisregardless. Perfect combination of douchery, pompous and stupidity.
 
2013-01-17 06:06:56 PM

DanZero: [img.photobucket.com image 460x1023]


The thing is, if I could pay £10 a month to get the American version of Netflix, YouTube, Hulu and such... I would. In a heartbeat. But I cant so I wont.
 
2013-01-17 06:23:11 PM

Pocket Ninja: For all intensive purposes, subby, it really doesn't matter alot if you say "all of the sudden" instead of "all of a sudden." But visa vee strict grammar rules, only one is technically correct.


I used to read Pocket Ninja's posts, but then I took an arrow to the grammar.
 
2013-01-17 06:30:48 PM

Kimpak: Mike Chewbacca: doczoidberg: Does anyone else worry that thew cable companies/ISPs are one day going to destroy Netflix by simply implementing strict data cap policies?

It seems like that could easily happen.

It's not like people would do anything about it.

Many of us CAN'T do anything about it. My only option is Comcast.

..or satellite. What most people mean to say is is my only 'good' choice.


Actually, when I moved into this apartment, my front office said, "You won't be able to get satellite reception in this apartment because it's on the ground floor and management doesn't let you mount a satellite anywhere other than on your own balcony/patio, so you're stuck with Comcast."
 
2013-01-17 06:35:12 PM

The Snow Dog: Kimpak: The Snow Dog: Mike Chewbacca: Agent4573: I just wish I lived in an area that was able to get a 5 Mbps connection.

I live in a Seattle suburb and I can't get that.

I wish I lived in an area that could get connections. The city I live in has no cable company / cable internet and AT&T is not allowed to do business here. You can get dial-up or MiFi or nothing. (And I'm 20 miles from a city of 1.5 million people in a town of 10,000 people.)

Look into Satellite internet, like HughesNet. Its overpriced and has some strict data caps, but it still beats dial up.

Yeah, have problems with mounting and I hate data caps. I only have 5 more months on my lease and I'm gone to greener pastures. There's a wireless internet company here that has no caps, but as with satellite, you have to erect it in line-of-sight and the lease says "no siree Bob".


The OTARD ruling also covers antennas used for receiving wireless Internet. As long as you can put the antenna on an area you have exclusive access to, you can throw down your penis and a copy of OTARD on your landlord's desk and tell him to start sucking.
 
2013-01-17 06:35:24 PM
NO they don't

/Intended to be a factual statement
 
2013-01-17 06:37:43 PM

Kimpak: I'm a little biased since I work for a cable company/ISP. We've looked into this and its not exactly 'free'. What netflix is trying to do is get cable companies to direct connect to their servers and/or install their crap on the cable companies dime. From what I can tell its free infrastructure for Netflix under the guise of 'easing network congestion'. I call shenanigans. Netflix is going to have to do something soon though, as more and more ISP's adopt data caps. Its only a matter of time, data caps are here and are not going away.

So download a few 1080p netflix movies and you'll cap yourself out for a month. Either netflix dies, or work's with ISP's to allow their content to not count against your cap. Or something like that.


Or the capped ISPs die a well deserved death.
 
2013-01-17 06:45:58 PM

ProfessorOhki: Or the capped ISPs die a well deserved death.


Or the US government gets with it and realises that the Internet has become the majorities main means of engaging with their politicians so it'd be a jolly good idea to have a tax funded universal internet connection available to all.

That way all these companies can battle it out on service, price, performance rather than a race to the bottom in a game of "who can be the most monolistic dick".
 
2013-01-17 06:46:32 PM
Never forget the elephant of surprise!
 
2013-01-17 06:50:40 PM

chende1: Never forget the elephant of surprise!


Hey, it worked for Hannibal. Not Lechter, the first one.
 
2013-01-17 06:52:15 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Nationalize all the wires and let every ISP and content provider battle on price and performance with no danger of throttling because the "tubes" are public property.

But that's the BAD kind of socialism - since it doesn't benefit established hierarchies.


TWCable could easily have a billion dollars tied up in their nationwide backbone.
You want to take that away from them?

You know how I know you're clueless about how the internet actually works?
 
2013-01-17 06:57:06 PM

Kimpak: HeartBurnKid: Kimpak: jigger: Goddamn, really? I thought everywhere had 30 mbps by now. I got the cheapo service and it's hard to go under 15 mbps. I think I pay for 12 but for some reason routinely blow through that.

Everywhere with at least moderate population density. Everyone seems to forget there's a lot more to the united states than its coast line states. All your major ISP's are going to be primarily located where the people are. Who can blame them for that. However that screws all the people who live in any of the rural states. Its expensive to build out a network to a town with only 200-300 people in it. So those people are either stuck with some niche ISP with shiatty speeds or has to go with satalite or dial up. No 30 mips for us.

Don't hand me that. Even in the highest population areas of the US, high-bandwidth internet is either unavailable or prohibitively expensive. Meanwhile, Sonic.NET in the Bay Area and Google in Kansas City are offering high-speed fiber on the cheap, in areas that aren't particularly dense at all. I get that some rural areas might be problematic (and that's why we need a new-millennium FDR to start a Rural Broadband Project and just get it done), but the only reason it's not more widespread than it is, is because the entrenched players don't want it to be.

Don't get me wrong, I agree to a certain extent. Google is the sticky wicket though. Not every ISP can do what Google did. The resources just aren't there. Google had the advantage of starting from the ground up, with essentially an infinite money cheat code activated. Which is awesome if you live in an area where they roll it out. As for Google shameing other ISP's into doing the same thing....it just isn't going to happen. Even if they wanted to, they couldn't. Fiber isn't cheap, there's the physical lines, the networking equipment, the installers and maintenance people, county/state/federal permits etc.. If you were a cable ISP and wanted to convert to ...


Then explain Sonic. They started with precisely none of that.
 
2013-01-17 06:57:58 PM

loonatic112358: thomps: just checking to make sure i'm reading this article correctly: this has nothing to do with network neutrality, right?

this has more to do with network hardware and configuration, and lots of pissin and moaning from time warner


No..no it doesn't. I suspect it has more to do with being required to establish a peering exchange presence at the same locations where Netflix Super HD is established. Otherwise, according to Netflix, you get less content.

/spent ten years working the twcable backbone, left over a year ago though, so my data is out of date some
 
2013-01-17 06:58:23 PM

Kimpak: HeartBurnKid: Kimpak: jigger: Goddamn, really? I thought everywhere had 30 mbps by now. I got the cheapo service and it's hard to go under 15 mbps. I think I pay for 12 but for some reason routinely blow through that.

Everywhere with at least moderate population density. Everyone seems to forget there's a lot more to the united states than its coast line states. All your major ISP's are going to be primarily located where the people are. Who can blame them for that. However that screws all the people who live in any of the rural states. Its expensive to build out a network to a town with only 200-300 people in it. So those people are either stuck with some niche ISP with shiatty speeds or has to go with satalite or dial up. No 30 mips for us.

Don't hand me that. Even in the highest population areas of the US, high-bandwidth internet is either unavailable or prohibitively expensive. Meanwhile, Sonic.NET in the Bay Area and Google in Kansas City are offering high-speed fiber on the cheap, in areas that aren't particularly dense at all. I get that some rural areas might be problematic (and that's why we need a new-millennium FDR to start a Rural Broadband Project and just get it done), but the only reason it's not more widespread than it is, is because the entrenched players don't want it to be.

Don't get me wrong, I agree to a certain extent. Google is the sticky wicket though. Not every ISP can do what Google did. The resources just aren't there. Google had the advantage of starting from the ground up, with essentially an infinite money cheat code activated. Which is awesome if you live in an area where they roll it out. As for Google shameing other ISP's into doing the same thing....it just isn't going to happen. Even if they wanted to, they couldn't. Fiber isn't cheap, there's the physical lines, the networking equipment, the installers and maintenance people, county/state/federal permits etc.. If you were a cable ISP and wanted to convert to ...


Cry me a river. ISPs have been gouging us immensely since the dawn of their existence, there's probably been enough money pumped into ISPs to have twisted pair, coax, and fiber laid and perfect cell signal to every residence in the continental US.

But it costs money to lobby and and pay executives the exorbitant wages they obviously deserve.
 
rpm
2013-01-17 07:01:49 PM

RoxtarRyan: Christ, even worse than TW download speed is their upload... often topping out at 1.5Mbps. I have no idea why people pay so goddamn much for horrid speeds


Topping out at 1.5? I'd be ecstatic if ours hit 1.5. We're at 0.5-0.75 on TW.

Download speed is fine at 20Mb.
 
rpm
2013-01-17 07:05:53 PM

X-boxershorts: TWCable could easily have a billion dollars tied up in their nationwide backbone.
You want to take that away from them?


Given that they got billions in subsidies to improve their network and did not, I don't think I'd be heartbroken since it was in effect bought and paid for.
 
2013-01-17 07:09:08 PM

rpm: X-boxershorts: TWCable could easily have a billion dollars tied up in their nationwide backbone.
You want to take that away from them?

Given that they got billions in subsidies to improve their network and did not, I don't think I'd be heartbroken since it was in effect bought and paid for.


I disagree with the assertion that the network hasn't improved. Your issues are likely very local. biatch at the local office and not in a FARK thread
 
2013-01-17 07:14:29 PM

X-boxershorts: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Nationalize all the wires and let every ISP and content provider battle on price and performance with no danger of throttling because the "tubes" are public property.

But that's the BAD kind of socialism - since it doesn't benefit established hierarchies.

TWCable could easily have a billion dollars tied up in their nationwide backbone.
You want to take that away from them?

You know how I know you're clueless about how the internet actually works


I never said seize, I said nationalize - as in, make property of the United States federal government and provide due compensation. If Time Warner has 100 billion tied up in their infrastructure, I would be more than willing to have taxpayer money allocated to offset their costs. The point is to enforce what is colloquially termed "net neutrality" instead of the more technical concept of IP based data filtering and selective controls for data ping rates.

But please, tell me how the net works and how eliminating the ability of any one party to censor another party via state ownership of the medium of communication is a bad thing.
 
2013-01-17 07:19:26 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: X-boxershorts: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Nationalize all the wires and let every ISP and content provider battle on price and performance with no danger of throttling because the "tubes" are public property.

But that's the BAD kind of socialism - since it doesn't benefit established hierarchies.

TWCable could easily have a billion dollars tied up in their nationwide backbone.
You want to take that away from them?

You know how I know you're clueless about how the internet actually works

I never said seize, I said nationalize - as in, make property of the United States federal government and provide due compensation. If Time Warner has 100 billion tied up in their infrastructure, I would be more than willing to have taxpayer money allocated to offset their costs. The point is to enforce what is colloquially termed "net neutrality" instead of the more technical concept of IP based data filtering and selective controls for data ping rates.

But please, tell me how the net works and how eliminating the ability of any one party to censor another party via state ownership of the medium of communication is a bad thing.


Then the state controls the filters. If you think the MPAA or RIAA are out of control now, just wait till the state and their corporate proxies have full control over that network.
 
2013-01-17 07:29:51 PM

Vaneshi: The thing is, if I could pay £10 a month to get the American version of Netflix, YouTube, Hulu and such... I would. In a heartbeat. But I cant so I wont.


There's plenty of ways to access US Netflix from outside the US. Your non-US Netflix account provides you access to the content based on the market you appear to be located while you're streaming. This means if you're (virtually) located in New York City, your Netflix UK account will provide you with the US content.

Works for Hulu as well but they don't have non-US accounts so it's just the free content you have access to there.

There's loads of services that allow you to appear to be located somewhere you're not.
 
2013-01-17 07:33:33 PM

X-boxershorts: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: X-boxershorts: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Nationalize all the wires and let every ISP and content provider battle on price and performance with no danger of throttling because the "tubes" are public property.

But that's the BAD kind of socialism - since it doesn't benefit established hierarchies.

TWCable could easily have a billion dollars tied up in their nationwide backbone.
You want to take that away from them?

You know how I know you're clueless about how the internet actually works

I never said seize, I said nationalize - as in, make property of the United States federal government and provide due compensation. If Time Warner has 100 billion tied up in their infrastructure, I would be more than willing to have taxpayer money allocated to offset their costs. The point is to enforce what is colloquially termed "net neutrality" instead of the more technical concept of IP based data filtering and selective controls for data ping rates.

But please, tell me how the net works and how eliminating the ability of any one party to censor another party via state ownership of the medium of communication is a bad thing.

Then the state controls the filters. If you think the MPAA or RIAA are out of control now, just wait till the state and their corporate proxies have full control over that network.


That's why we have a First Amendment. BTW, the First Amendment doesn't apply to private entities like TWC or ATT or Google. It only applies to the US government. And that's why our internet should be nationalized, at the very least.
 
2013-01-17 07:35:26 PM

X-boxershorts: loonatic112358: thomps: just checking to make sure i'm reading this article correctly: this has nothing to do with network neutrality, right?

this has more to do with network hardware and configuration, and lots of pissin and moaning from time warner

No..no it doesn't. I suspect it has more to do with being required to establish a peering exchange presence at the same locations where Netflix Super HD is established. Otherwise, according to Netflix, you get less content.

/spent ten years working the twcable backbone, left over a year ago though, so my data is out of date some


If we subtract every cent of subsidy that they've ever received from the value of their backbone, how much is tied up in it after that?
 
2013-01-17 07:35:27 PM

rpm: Topping out at 1.5? I'd be ecstatic if ours hit 1.5. We're at 0.5-0.75 on TW.


...the FARK??? Sorry for upcoming rant, as you may already know all of this, but hopefully someone passing by this thread can take something away.

If you're getting speeds that low, try power cycling your modem/router. You could have a bit of "signal degradation", as I call it, and power cycling often helps clear things up a bit (like rebooting your phone or computer if it starts to act up). You should have, on average, a 5:1, maybe a 7:1 ratio for upload:download, generally speaking (based upon my experience, and even that is running the test with people running on a VPN all across the country). 0.75Mbps is, thanks to the magic of using two commonly confused standards on the internet, 90KB/s upload for files. While the numbers you see on speedtest.net look good, it, like many sites, uses Mb (Megabits), rather than MB (Megabytes). You can't easily look at a file, see that it is a certain size, then look at your speed test and calculate how long it will take to download (or upload). Well, you may be able to, but you have to know what is going on.

Look at it like this: when you download a file and look at the transfer speed, you're like "what, I'm downloading this file at only 7MB/s? What the hell? Speedtest.net told me I have a speed of 56!"

Reason being, file sizes are in MB (megabytes). Internet speeds are calculated in Mb. Uploading a 35MB video to your Facebook account, for example, could take upwards of 6.5 minutes, assuming you have nothing else taking up your upload capacity. That bit of capitalization in the names of the makes a big difference when you want to take advantage of certain products and content (Vonage, for example, requires a certain upload speed to function properly, as does video conferencing programs like Skype). The commonplace confusion sucks, and it would be nice if ISPs were a little more clear about their speeds when advertising them, since when people shop for speeds, they often look at what is advertised and think "cool, I'll be able to download files as fast as 20 megs a second!".

Overall though, if you're paying any more than $20/month for your internet, I'd hit up TW... you're getting barely twice the speed of dialup (assuming you could use all 56kB for uploading). Good luck, though... I spoke to a person earlier this week who said TW does not make any guarantee about their upload rates, only download rates.

/end rant
//slightly medicated cause I'm sick, so please forgive any miscalculations, though I tried to double check my work
 
2013-01-17 07:35:53 PM

Kimpak: jigger: Goddamn, really? I thought everywhere had 30 mbps by now. I got the cheapo service and it's hard to go under 15 mbps. I think I pay for 12 but for some reason routinely blow through that.

Everywhere with at least moderate population density. Everyone seems to forget there's a lot more to the united states than its coast line states. All your major ISP's are going to be primarily located where the people are. Who can blame them for that. However that screws all the people who live in any of the rural states. Its expensive to build out a network to a town with only 200-300 people in it. So those people are either stuck with some niche ISP with shiatty speeds or has to go with satalite or dial up. No 30 mips for us.


This. I live about an hour drive outside of Detroit, town of ~24,000, biggest in the county. Comcast caps me at 2mb/s. I'm fairly confident that they could give me more if they wanted to, but they don't. The only way I'm going to get faster internet is if I move to Ann Arbor, and I don't think I could handle a college town like that.

/not as old as I sound
 
rpm
2013-01-17 07:43:59 PM

RoxtarRyan: rpm: Topping out at 1.5? I'd be ecstatic if ours hit 1.5. We're at 0.5-0.75 on TW.

...the FARK??? Sorry for upcoming rant, as you may already know all of this, but hopefully someone passing by this thread can take something away.

If you're getting speeds that low, try power cycling your modem/router.


Given that it's also pretty consistently a round number, even after reboot, I think it's capped. It's been closer to 1 lately, it's had jumps from 0.5 -> 0.75 -> 1. At least download is fast enough at 20. That's not to say I wouldn't mind the symmetric 1 Gb Kansas City has :-/
 
2013-01-17 07:46:33 PM

rpm: Given that it's also pretty consistently a round number, even after reboot, I think it's capped. It's been closer to 1 lately, it's had jumps from 0.5 -> 0.75 -> 1. At least download is fast enough at 20. That's not to say I wouldn't mind the symmetric 1 Gb Kansas City has :-/


Dude, I hope Google finds a way to put the industry on its damn head over that. While I'm pretty happy with the speeds I'm getting, I'm a junkie. If you tell me I can go faster, for the same price I'm paying now, I want it. And now.
 
2013-01-17 08:18:43 PM

Naesen: ZoSo_the_Crowe: doczoidberg: Does anyone else worry that thew cable companies/ISPs are one day going to destroy Netflix by simply implementing strict data cap policies?

It seems like that could easily happen.

It's not like people would do anything about it.

It appears as if Comcast is already trying.

That 250gb is a soft cap, where they'll harass you about network security. I've approached a terabyte almost every month and have told them that they can even bring in their van and sit in my driveway to try to break in to my wireless network--I tried, and I can't.


...don't they charge you extra if they go over the data cap?
 
2013-01-17 08:23:29 PM
You know what, Time-Warner?

Go sit on a hot ebola-laden rusty serrated pitchfork and don't get up until you have a full case of corporate necrotizing fasciitis. And that's the kindest thing I can possibly think to say to you.

It's the absolute least you deserve for what you've done to municipal broadband and internet service in North Carolina.
 
2013-01-17 08:31:15 PM

China White Tea: X-boxershorts: loonatic112358: thomps: just checking to make sure i'm reading this article correctly: this has nothing to do with network neutrality, right?

this has more to do with network hardware and configuration, and lots of pissin and moaning from time warner

No..no it doesn't. I suspect it has more to do with being required to establish a peering exchange presence at the same locations where Netflix Super HD is established. Otherwise, according to Netflix, you get less content.

/spent ten years working the twcable backbone, left over a year ago though, so my data is out of date some

If we subtract every cent of subsidy that they've ever received from the value of their backbone, how much is tied up in it after that?


It's much much more than just backbone, the backbone ties the regional networks together, which are also very large, and then connects to public and private peering exchange points. How much is it all worth? Including franchises, all the different types of network and content distribution gear, the data centers and video production facilities?

I have no clue.

But I suspect many billions. TWCable gets grant money to extend their network to rural or underserved areas, especially for cable internet. There's pretty much no other grant money out there other than that, for cable ISPs. I really don't think TW Cable gets a whole lot of that (relatively speaking). Other than that, TW Cable is entirely debt or investor funded.

The original Telecomm companies, on the other hand, were almost entirely gov't subsidized for generations. It was government grants that strung telephone copper across the country and put telephones in virtually every home in America. Verizon got billions to roll out FIOS in PA, it still ain't available where I live, nor is 4G....Cable companies, like Comcast and TW Cable are largely still regulated by the government as entertainment providers and not telecommunications companies. And that makes a big difference when it comes to the grant money available. I'm not saying TW Cable hasn't gotten grant money, but it's no where near the amount they've invested in their backbone network alone.
 
2013-01-17 08:41:56 PM

ZoSo_the_Crowe: Naesen: ZoSo_the_Crowe: doczoidberg: Does anyone else worry that thew cable companies/ISPs are one day going to destroy Netflix by simply implementing strict data cap policies?

It seems like that could easily happen.

It's not like people would do anything about it.

It appears as if Comcast is already trying.

That 250gb is a soft cap, where they'll harass you about network security. I've approached a terabyte almost every month and have told them that they can even bring in their van and sit in my driveway to try to break in to my wireless network--I tried, and I can't.

...don't they charge you extra if they go over the data cap?


They more or less suspended the data cap enforcement back in May in order to test 'other approaches' in certain markets. If you were in a test market, there was still a cap, just a little higher than before, and even higher for the faster plans. Everyone else was basically uncapped, for now. Of course they'll still send the usual nasty-grams to customers whose usage is deemed excessive, whatever the threshold for excessive is.

Link
 
2013-01-17 09:04:54 PM

ZoSo_the_Crowe: Naesen: ZoSo_the_Crowe: doczoidberg: Does anyone else worry that thew cable companies/ISPs are one day going to destroy Netflix by simply implementing strict data cap policies?

It seems like that could easily happen.

It's not like people would do anything about it.

It appears as if Comcast is already trying.

That 250gb is a soft cap, where they'll harass you about network security. I've approached a terabyte almost every month and have told them that they can even bring in their van and sit in my driveway to try to break in to my wireless network--I tried, and I can't.

...don't they charge you extra if they go over the data cap?


Not from what I've experienced, but they are now rolling out plans by region. YMMV. All they've done is occasionally call and email me about my usage which 'has a possibility of indicating network insecurity'.

No guys, sorry, just run a server from my house that streams, filehosts, and hosts games to the public. Doesn't violate the Tos, otherwise you would have caught on by now via the ports I'm using and the bandwidth I'm consuming.
 
2013-01-17 09:36:53 PM
Wow. After reading this thread, I am really surprised at the variation in the availability, quality and price of internet connections throughout the US in terms of home connections.

I can't wait until I can get fiber to my home. It's currently not available, but it's only a matter of time before FiOS, google fiber or some other prover comes to this area. (I live in a rural mountainous area, but it's only 30 miles from San Jose). Fiber is the future of the internet. Where it's available, the price for the speed you get is amazing. I read about a bay area community with a local ISP offering 100Mb/sec connections for very affordable prices. I think it was only $100-200 a month, I wish I could remember where that was.

Fiber is a great medium for network infrastructure IMO. You can send incredibly large amounts of Gb/sec over many Km on a single line. At a previous job, we had access to a 10Gb/sec line of fiber which connected to CENIC. When optically multiplexed, it could send/receive 80Gb/sec for a relatively low price (it was a government facility).

I now work for a private company. I am shocked to see how many clients still rely on expensive T1 circuits to get a mere 1.5Mb/sec. I recently set up a network, and the company purchased a DS3 connection capped at 10Mb/sec. I damn near crapped my pants. They committed to spend thousands of dollars a month to get a connection that is less then a low end home connection via cable. Dinosaurs die slowly I suppose.
 
2013-01-17 09:44:43 PM

Naesen: Not from what I've experienced, but they are now rolling out plans by region. YMMV. All they've done is occasionally call and email me about my usage which 'has a possibility of indicating network insecurity'.

No guys, sorry, just run a server from my house that streams, filehosts, and hosts games to the public. Doesn't violate the Tos, otherwise you would have caught on by now via the ports I'm using and the bandwidth I'm consuming.


Actually, from their TOS:

I. Prohibited Uses and Activities

-use or run dedicated, stand-alone equipment or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises local area network ("Premises LAN"), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited equipment and servers include, but are not limited to, email, web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;

I'm sure hosting games could get a pass, as Comcast is not likely to go toe-to-toe with the ESA or gaming companies (likely to get involved as an end result of going after gamers), but file hosting or stream hosting might get some eyebrows raised in your direction. Just keep an eye on your usage... Companies like Comcast usually won't waste time on small-time servers, but if you're aiming on becoming the next big thing, might be worth it to just pay a 3rd party to host.
 
2013-01-17 09:58:31 PM

RoxtarRyan: Naesen: Not from what I've experienced, but they are now rolling out plans by region. YMMV. All they've done is occasionally call and email me about my usage which 'has a possibility of indicating network insecurity'.

No guys, sorry, just run a server from my house that streams, filehosts, and hosts games to the public. Doesn't violate the Tos, otherwise you would have caught on by now via the ports I'm using and the bandwidth I'm consuming.

Actually, from their TOS:

I. Prohibited Uses and Activities

-use or run dedicated, stand-alone equipment or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises local area network ("Premises LAN"), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited equipment and servers include, but are not limited to, email, web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;

I'm sure hosting games could get a pass, as Comcast is not likely to go toe-to-toe with the ESA or gaming companies (likely to get involved as an end result of going after gamers), but file hosting or stream hosting might get some eyebrows raised in your direction. Just keep an eye on your usage... Companies like Comcast usually won't waste time on small-time servers, but if you're aiming on becoming the next big thing, might be worth it to just pay a 3rd party to host.


Heh it's all personal stuff, some for use by friends, and all filehosting is done under Ftp, which is allowed.

Stream services are masked under a 'proxy' that really is just under VPN, which is also allowed. Granted, I'm skirting the edges of the rules, but there's a reason they've not brought down any sort of restrictions.

They did block my attempts at setting up an email server, forcing me to instead relay through gmail, so that's how I know everything else is relatively kosher, which is funny due to the fact the email server would have consumed the least amount of bandwidth of all of my services.

There's no way I'll make it to the next big thing. Though I'll consider your advice if I begin regularly pushing above a terabyte monthly, budget willing. Thanks.
 
2013-01-17 10:43:19 PM

count chocula: Wow. After reading this thread, I am really surprised at the variation in the availability, quality and price of internet connections throughout the US in terms of home connections.

I can't wait until I can get fiber to my home. It's currently not available, but it's only a matter of time before FiOS, google fiber or some other prover comes to this area. (I live in a rural mountainous area, but it's only 30 miles from San Jose). Fiber is the future of the internet. Where it's available, the price for the speed you get is amazing. I read about a bay area community with a local ISP offering 100Mb/sec connections for very affordable prices. I think it was only $100-200 a month, I wish I could remember where that was.

Fiber is a great medium for network infrastructure IMO. You can send incredibly large amounts of Gb/sec over many Km on a single line. At a previous job, we had access to a 10Gb/sec line of fiber which connected to CENIC. When optically multiplexed, it could send/receive 80Gb/sec for a relatively low price (it was a government facility).

I now work for a private company. I am shocked to see how many clients still rely on expensive T1 circuits to get a mere 1.5Mb/sec. I recently set up a network, and the company purchased a DS3 connection capped at 10Mb/sec. I damn near crapped my pants. They committed to spend thousands of dollars a month to get a connection that is less then a low end home connection via cable. Dinosaurs die slowly I suppose.


You must be unfamiliar with the differences between business class internet and home internet. Business internet usually has things like guaranteed up time, guaranteed speed and latancies, etc. The level of support is just crazy different. Is it worth the difference in price? I'd say no in some situations. Just as most service contracts on lab instruments or IT equipment are crazy expensive (3-10K/yr)
 
2013-01-18 01:32:02 AM

The Snow Dog: Mike Chewbacca: Agent4573: I just wish I lived in an area that was able to get a 5 Mbps connection.

I live in a Seattle suburb and I can't get that.

I wish I lived in an area that could get connections. The city I live in has no cable company / cable internet and AT&T is not allowed to do business here. You can get dial-up or MiFi or nothing. (And I'm 20 miles from a city of 1.5 million people in a town of 10,000 people.)


That's insane. I know of towns of 500 in central Wisconsin, where the closest "big city" is Wausau at a whopping 39k people and 40 miles away, that have cable. Who's your regional provider?

Theirs is Charter, who I've always considered to be one of the worst.
 
2013-01-18 08:56:10 AM
I wish they'd be concerned with burying the cable line they installed at my house 3 weeks ago.

/First World White Guy Problems
 
2013-01-18 08:57:45 AM
Your cans and a string Internet connection won't be able to handle these new formats anyway.
 
2013-01-18 09:04:13 AM
Other Content Delivery Networks bring their content to the provider. There's a Google Cluster in most every regional Comcast, Charter, TW Cable, etc..data center I know of. Akamai has similar arrangements.

I think Netflix is trying to leverage their customer base to alter the playing field here. Insisting that carriers come to them instead of bringing their content to the carrier.
 
2013-01-18 10:34:39 AM

X-boxershorts: Other Content Delivery Networks bring their content to the provider. There's a Google Cluster in most every regional Comcast, Charter, TW Cable, etc..data center I know of. Akamai has similar arrangements.

I think Netflix is trying to leverage their customer base to alter the playing field here. Insisting that carriers come to them instead of bringing their content to the carrier.


Looks kind of like that. Among large installation operations, it's common to have agreements with major CDN's to house servers on site. These days the majority of network traffic never leaves the ISP - it is serviced by local instances of services.
 
2013-01-18 11:31:39 AM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Nationalize all the wires and let every ISP and content provider battle on price and performance with no danger of throttling because the "tubes" are public property.

But that's the BAD kind of socialism - since it doesn't benefit established hierarchies.


I love how corporations are all "YAY for the open market!" until someone builds a better mousetrap, then it's all "NO to the open market" because they're dead in the water.
 
2013-01-18 11:41:14 AM
Maybe im just a nerd, but I wont live anywhere that doesnt offer at least like 25 mbps. I passed on a number of nice homes in nice towns because of inferior internet infrastructure. Its one of the very first things I ask when looking at real estate.

The difference can often be huge just depending on which street you are located in a town.
 
2013-01-18 11:50:07 AM

CmndrFish: The Snow Dog: Mike Chewbacca: Agent4573: I just wish I lived in an area that was able to get a 5 Mbps connection.

I live in a Seattle suburb and I can't get that.

I wish I lived in an area that could get connections. The city I live in has no cable company / cable internet and AT&T is not allowed to do business here. You can get dial-up or MiFi or nothing. (And I'm 20 miles from a city of 1.5 million people in a town of 10,000 people.)

That's insane. I know of towns of 500 in central Wisconsin, where the closest "big city" is Wausau at a whopping 39k people and 40 miles away, that have cable. Who's your regional provider?

Theirs is Charter, who I've always considered to be one of the worst.


I live just outside of a small town of 1000 people, which itself is just outside a town of about 50,000 people, and all I can get right now is DSL at 1 Mbps for $40 a month.
I'm actually paying Charter to run a cable line to the house this spring so I can get 20-30 Mbps for the same price. (There's cable on the poles at the street, just nothing running to the house).
 
2013-01-18 11:56:10 AM

syberpud: X-boxershorts: Other Content Delivery Networks bring their content to the provider. There's a Google Cluster in most every regional Comcast, Charter, TW Cable, etc..data center I know of. Akamai has similar arrangements.

I think Netflix is trying to leverage their customer base to alter the playing field here. Insisting that carriers come to them instead of bringing their content to the carrier.

Looks kind of like that. Among large installation operations, it's common to have agreements with major CDN's to house servers on site. These days the majority of network traffic never leaves the ISP - it is serviced by local instances of services.


It's pretty much win/win for both Netflix and the ISP. From a look at their peering list on their website, they're in most of the major locations in the US that a major ISP operator is likely to also have equipment located in. They're willing to do this interconnect for free to the ISP, the ISP just has to provide a 10gbit port to peer with, and relatively speaking, they're not that expensive anymore. Both sides then don't have to pay for that bandwidth for transit across whatever carriers are in-between Netflix and the ISP. If we're talking about a minimum of 2Gbit of traffic (what netflix requires to even agree to do this), that can be a pretty hefty transit bill if the traffic from the ISP to their transit peer isn't totally balanced (I'm assuming worst-case peering with anyone here, true settlement-free ISP peering is getting increasingly rarer these days).

Time Warner is just being whiny. If I were a network architect working for them, I'd be pissed that management wasn't considering this.

Hell, it's one of the big reasons, that at work, we dropped in a couple of hundred Mbit link to Comcast. Traffic analysis was showing that half our website traffic was to CC connected hosts, so getting a dedicated transit link to them took a lot of pressure off our other transit connections.

/Network engineer
 
2013-01-18 12:07:17 PM

Stormgren: syberpud: X-boxershorts: Other Content Delivery Networks bring their content to the provider. There's a Google Cluster in most every regional Comcast, Charter, TW Cable, etc..data center I know of. Akamai has similar arrangements.

I think Netflix is trying to leverage their customer base to alter the playing field here. Insisting that carriers come to them instead of bringing their content to the carrier.

Looks kind of like that. Among large installation operations, it's common to have agreements with major CDN's to house servers on site. These days the majority of network traffic never leaves the ISP - it is serviced by local instances of services.

It's pretty much win/win for both Netflix and the ISP. From a look at their peering list on their website, they're in most of the major locations in the US that a major ISP operator is likely to also have equipment located in. They're willing to do this interconnect for free to the ISP, the ISP just has to provide a 10gbit port to peer with, and relatively speaking, they're not that expensive anymore. Both sides then don't have to pay for that bandwidth for transit across whatever carriers are in-between Netflix and the ISP. If we're talking about a minimum of 2Gbit of traffic (what netflix requires to even agree to do this), that can be a pretty hefty transit bill if the traffic from the ISP to their transit peer isn't totally balanced (I'm assuming worst-case peering with anyone here, true settlement-free ISP peering is getting increasingly rarer these days).

Time Warner is just being whiny. If I were a network architect working for them, I'd be pissed that management wasn't considering this.

Hell, it's one of the big reasons, that at work, we dropped in a couple of hundred Mbit link to Comcast. Traffic analysis was showing that half our website traffic was to CC connected hosts, so getting a dedicated transit link to them took a lot of pressure off our other transit connections.

/Network engineer


I don't believe TWCable shares a NY peer exchange directly with Netflix. And TWCable is expected to rent a cage, install a high capacity 10GB network switch, buy the cross connect? Just so NYC TW Cable Northeast Subscribers can get Netflix SuperhD?

I think not.

I'm a Former Cable ISP Backbone engineer here. Netflix is trying to change the format. Other Content Delivery networks will put an install at the ISPs site. Here, Netflix is insisting the ISP come to them. Google has installations at regional data centers. Akamai has installations at regional datacenters. Limelight has installations at regional datacenters. (Notice, these aren't public exchanges, these are ISP regional datacenters)...THEY bring the content to the ISP.

Netflix is trying to change that. And if you don't peer in the same exact exchange as netflix, the ISP either pays for the installation or that region doesn't get SuperHD. Have you priced a Juniper MX480 or 960 with 10GB ports lately?
 
2013-01-18 12:36:20 PM

X-boxershorts:

Netflix is trying to change that. And if you don't peer in the same exact exchange as netflix, the ISP either pays for the installation or that region doesn't get SuperHD. Have you priced a Juniper MX480 or 960 with 10GB ports lately?


Yes, why? :)

I honestly don't consider it to be too far-fetched for Netflix to be offering this. It's really no different from any other transit, so I'd treat them like any other ISP that it might be advantageous for me to get interconnected with.

Also, while Akamai et al doesn't really charge for the hardware provided, last I knew, the network operator still has to foot the bill for power, cooling, and bandwidth for the clusters to talk back to the mothership. This might not be a trivial number for hardware taking up space in a datacenter that's not making me any money directly. Contrast that with getting into an exchange where I might be able to not only connect to Netflix, but leverage that effort into other interconnectivity opportunities. If it were me, I'd be comparing the numbers.
 
2013-01-18 12:51:32 PM

Stormgren: X-boxershorts:

Netflix is trying to change that. And if you don't peer in the same exact exchange as netflix, the ISP either pays for the installation or that region doesn't get SuperHD. Have you priced a Juniper MX480 or 960 with 10GB ports lately?

Yes, why? :)

I honestly don't consider it to be too far-fetched for Netflix to be offering this. It's really no different from any other transit, so I'd treat them like any other ISP that it might be advantageous for me to get interconnected with.

Also, while Akamai et al doesn't really charge for the hardware provided, last I knew, the network operator still has to foot the bill for power, cooling, and bandwidth for the clusters to talk back to the mothership. This might not be a trivial number for hardware taking up space in a datacenter that's not making me any money directly. Contrast that with getting into an exchange where I might be able to not only connect to Netflix, but leverage that effort into other interconnectivity opportunities. If it were me, I'd be comparing the numbers.


When the content is brought close to the subscriber (i.e. a regional datacenter), then the carrier isn't paying transit costs. Level3 charges per megabit and while those costs are way down, the amount of traffic is way up...transit fees are still a major consideration in traffic management.and while this arrangement with netflix wouldn't incur transit costs, it will incur monthly recurring costs for the cross connect and datacenter presence.

And,as per netflix faq at this site, their standard content will not have as many titles as their SuperHD content sites, which means subscribers will biatch and moan about lack of content. Plus, maintaining an average 2GB/s traffic rate to the SuperHD sites all but guarantees that smaller ISPs will be shut out of the SuperHD content.

This is just me speaking...I no longer work for the Cable ISP, but I really don't like the netflix plan. TWCable has more than enough dough to set up multiples of these SuperHD direct peers plus the traffic guarantee would be no problem. But, why should ISPs bear the costs of connecting to Netflix?
It's kind of a push situation, a break even for large ISPs...no more transit costs but still a recurring data center cross connect cost with possible large one time expenditure for the initial cross connect. At the same time, smaller regional ISPs (I am stuck on one of these) are shut out completely....
 
2013-01-18 12:59:34 PM

X-boxershorts: This is just me speaking...I no longer work for the Cable ISP, but I really don't like the netflix plan. TWCable has more than enough dough to set up multiples of these SuperHD direct peers plus the traffic guarantee would be no problem. But, why should ISPs bear the costs of connecting to Netflix?
It's kind of a push situation, a break even for large ISPs...no more transit costs but still a recurring data center cross connect cost with possible large one time expenditure for the initial cross connect. At the same time, smaller regional ISPs (I am stuck on one of these) are shut out completely....


You make some really excellent points here. I can't really refute much of it. The smaller guys are probably going to get screwed on the cross-connect bit as well, and I guess I was thinking in terms of the bigger players.

Thanks for the discussion, it was fun.
 
Displayed 50 of 105 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report