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 15
    More: Obvious, Time Warner, Netflix, net neutrality, Google Fiber, Virgin Media, Competitive Enterprise Institute, ISPs, download speeds  
•       •       •

8569 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-17 02:31:11 PM  
4 votes:
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.
2013-01-17 02:13:23 PM  
3 votes:
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.
2013-01-17 06:58:23 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-01-17 06:45:58 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:53:35 PM  
2 votes:
img.photobucket.com
2013-01-18 12:51:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:07:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:31:39 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-17 07:14:29 PM  
1 votes:

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.
rpm
2013-01-17 07:05:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:04:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:36:32 PM  
1 votes:
So, net neutrality is all about allowing content to travel freely over any wire without the end user having to pay extra, right? The whole idea is that we as users want free access to any website or service out there without the ISP or another middleman charging us extra.

This doesn't have anything to do with net neutrality, then. This is about network architecture - Netflix is tired of paying CDN fees to connect to other networks and the cost of paying those fees on this new huge load of data is prohibitive. So, Netflix says, if you want to offer this data to your customers, you have to tie in to our network directly. We're not paying a third party just to get to your customers.

That makes perfect sense to me, anyway. Netflix now has the demand and the clout to start pushing ISPs to do stuff like this, I guess, and any time a content company starts pushing the aging telecoms into network upgrades, I'm all for it.
2013-01-17 05:19:22 PM  
1 votes:

ecmoRandomNumbers: So how does Netflix screw me on this? I know I'm going to get screwed, I just don't know how. Am I going to have to get rid of this, too? Dammit. Just as I was starting to watch The West Wing.


Netflix is putting pressure on ISPs to cooperate by denying their customers their top quality streaming until they play ball. The only way I can see this screwing you is if your ISP caves and uses it as an excuse to make up some new fee to pad your bill.
2013-01-17 03:51:05 PM  
1 votes:

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.


Yeesh.
Intents, and purposes.
Unless I'm missing the joke.
2013-01-17 03:46:31 PM  
1 votes:
Oh Hi. Look at all of the suddens I care.
 
Displayed 15 of 15 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report