[quote]cueball wrote:
This is how I’ve always assumed it worked. If the pipeline from the ISP to the customers is overloaded, EVERYTHING slows down.
Why would Comcast pick one person to screw over the other? This is like picking a certain group of people out of a traffic jam and letting them speed by on the shoulder while everybody else is jammed up.
[/quote]
No, it’s more like letting cars and light trucks speed by while the oversized load caravan takes up two lanes.
[quote]tedro wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
This is how I’ve always assumed it worked. If the pipeline from the ISP to the customers is overloaded, EVERYTHING slows down.
Why would Comcast pick one person to screw over the other? This is like picking a certain group of people out of a traffic jam and letting them speed by on the shoulder while everybody else is jammed up.
[/quote]
No, it’s more like letting cars and light trucks speed by while the oversized load caravan takes up two lanes.[/quote]
Not sure if I follow what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting the oversized load be allowed to move faster because it requires more road space? Or are you suggesting you hold the caravan up so the smaller cars can speed by because they take up less space and there is more of them?
Either way, it doesn’t seem to match up with beans example.
He suggested the lone, small load (“one dude is downloading adobe which takes 10”), which I assume is analogous to cars and light trucks, be the one that gets slowed down to 5 so the rest of the users (“one person watching HD movies which takes 10 resources for Comcast, At the same time someone is playing call of duty which takes 5, and 12 people are watching porn which takes 5 total”) which is analogous to the oversized caravan, is allowed to continue unhindered because it occupies the majority of Comcast’s resources vs Adobe guy.
(Edit: I think the values of resources are not proportioned correctly in the example, which kind of skews the discussion a bit. I doubt an Adobe download pulls near the same bandwidth as an HD movie.)
Either way, you have a group of people who have paid for use of the road. Some people have paid to have a higher top speed than others, but when the road is full, no one get to drive at their top speed, regardless of who is on the road and for what purpose.
It seems that beans suggests that, I’m assuming, since the Adobe download isn’t as important, it gets slowed down so other peoples movies/porn/games don’t get interrupted. Well, the guy downloading Adobe feels that download, at that particular time, is important. This sounds a lot like good of the many vs good of the few. Which surprises me considering the source.
Beans- If I’m off the mark, and that’s not what you’re suggesting, please clarify.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So here is another question:
Situation
Any given moment there is one person watching HD movies which takes 10 resources for Comcast
At the same time someone is playing call of duty which takes 5
and 12 people are watching porn which takes 5 total
and one dude is downloading adobe which takes 10
that is 30 total resources on Comcast’s system.
Lets assume Comcast only have 25 total resources to give.
Does everyone get fucked with lag time because Comcast can’t knock down the adobe to 5 on purpose?[/quote]
Ya, I think so. Why should the guy downloading Adobe (the 1%er lol) get screwed.
If you promise 20 clients you’ll have their tax return done by April 15th, but you know damn well you can only get 15 of them done by then, what happens? [/quote]
We prioritize the people that pay us the most (and/re refer the most business) and apologize to the rest. If the government told me we couldn’t do this (net neutrality)… Well, we’d be fucked pretty damn fast, as no one would get done on time I guess.
You’re making my point for me.
[quote]cueball wrote:
Beans- If I’m off the mark, and that’s not what you’re suggesting, please clarify.[/quote]
A little. You’re assuming I’m making value judgments by arbitrarily picking the download over the others to limit. I’m not, I’m just picking that one.
All I’m trying to illustrate with the question is: as it stands now, the ISP can manipulate traffic to optimize everyone’s experience. (IE: the most traffic gets through the fastest, because some activities are given priority over others, based on usage and value judgments made by the company. So the ISP looks at it and says, customer satisfaction depends on usability. If we don’t let the HD movie, games and porn through without loading, we’ll have upwards of 14 pissed off people, because limits to their speed/flow destroy their experience. If we slow down the download, one angry call, if at all, because even if it is a touch slower, as long as it isn’t interrupted, they’ll just watch a movie while it downloads.)
And my fear is with the new law, the ISP can’t make these judgments and in these instances, everyone’s experience will get shitty. Right before those 12 people pop they will get the buffering wheel as the video pauses on dude’s face. And because the regulation will encourage a monopoly… There won’t be as much recourse here.
Seems like the ISPs who were formerly or still are cable companies want to make the internet as shitty as tv became.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Seems like the ISPs who were formerly or still are cable companies want to make the internet as shitty as tv became.[/quote]
And massive content providers like Google and Netflix want government protection of their pocket books.
Think this took too long to post, seems like some of my posts take a day to show up, or simply wasn’t worth any comment, if so apologies for re-posting
Regarding the comments that “conservatives earn their gov’t money”. I think that statement is a little too broad.
I hope its clear from my shitty little drawing that many businesses have simply made getting gov’t contracts their business goal. From their initial lobbying investment (if it’s even necessary) they get a much larger return. From this government officials have simply bought themselves with their own money.
Let’s look at the largest government contractors
Lockheed martin - ~$36B from government contracts, ~$45B total revenue, 80% from government
Boeing - ~$19B from government contracts, $~87B total revenue, ~21% from gov’t
Northropp Grumman - ~$17B from gov’t contracts, ~$25B total revenue, ~68% from gov’t
General Dynamics - ~$15B from gov’t contracts, ~$32B total, ~50% from gov’t
Raytheon - ~$15B from gov’t contracts, ~$24B total, ~62.5% from gov’t
So from this we see that many companies get a good portion of their revenue from government contracts.
So my question is, if the government is your only, or primary/majority customer, are you really a business?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
Beans- If I’m off the mark, and that’s not what you’re suggesting, please clarify.[/quote]
A little. You’re assuming I’m making value judgments by arbitrarily picking the download over the others to limit. I’m not, I’m just picking that one. [/quote]
OK, I see.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
All I’m trying to illustrate with the question is: as it stands now, the ISP can manipulate traffic to optimize everyone’s experience. (IE: the most traffic gets through the fastest, because some activities are given priority over others, based on usage and value judgments made by the company. So the ISP looks at it and says, customer satisfaction depends on usability. If we don’t let the HD movie, games and porn through without loading, we’ll have upwards of 14 pissed off people, because limits to their speed/flow destroy their experience. If we slow down the download, one angry call, if at all, because even if it is a touch slower, as long as it isn’t interrupted, they’ll just watch a movie while it downloads.) [/quote]
But is the optimizing/manipulation really that specific? It seems like it would be a massive undertaking (and forwarded expense to the user) to constantly regulate AND manipulate every single customers speed to optimize the majority’s experience.
It seems more likely to me that it’s more of a free flowing pipeline where higher tier paying customers get a bigger percentage of the pipeline, so even if shit slows down due to traffic, they still have enough pipe to fit their content through at a useable speed.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And my fear is with the new law, the ISP can’t make these judgments and in these instances, everyone’s experience will get shitty. Right before those 12 people pop they will get the buffering wheel as the video pauses on dude’s face. And because the regulation will encourage a monopoly… There won’t be as much recourse here. [/quote]
Maybe I’m missing where this is discussing what you are describing. I have been under the assumption it was about forcing the end user to pay a premium for streaming services due to lost revenue from canceled cable, therefore controlling how you use the internet as well as forcing providers like Netflix to pay more to have preferential treatment in the pipeline.
[quote]cueball wrote:
But is the optimizing/manipulation really that specific? [/quote]
Today? I haven’t the slightest idea. But if I just thought of it, I’m sure someone much smarter than me has, and can work out an algorithm to do it.
Right, but it becomes a premium service they can offer, that people will pay for. Turns “up to” speeds into “at least” speeds.
That confuses me on how they are able to offer different speed packages in the first place then. Unless they are purposely slowing down things, and the internet would otherwise be much fast 100% of the time.
[quote]
Maybe I’m missing where this is discussing what you are describing. I have been under the assumption it was about forcing the end user to pay a premium for streaming services due to lost revenue from canceled cable, therefore controlling how you use the internet as well as forcing providers like Netflix to pay more to have preferential treatment in the pipeline.[/quote]
The regulation is looking to prevent an ISP from manipulating speeds that content gets to users for profit. (For example, the ISP can’t charge Netflix X and let them have Y speed, and charge Amazon 2X and give them 2Y speed.
So I’m taking it from the different angle. If they aren’t allowed to manipulate speed, then will my scenarios happen?
I’m not 100% sold this isn’t good regulation, but I am 100% sold government typically fucks everything up it touches, unintentionally at times.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
But is the optimizing/manipulation really that specific? [/quote]
Today? I haven’t the slightest idea. But if I just thought of it, I’m sure someone much smarter than me has, and can work out an algorithm to do it.
Right, but it becomes a premium service they can offer, that people will pay for. Turns “up to” speeds into “at least” speeds.[/quote]
Looking at it like that seems more plausible to me. This makes it more of an across-the-board thing instead of constantly up and down regulating specific user speeds due to that days total usage.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
That confuses me on how they are able to offer different speed packages in the first place then. Unless they are purposely slowing down things, and the internet would otherwise be much fast 100% of the time. [/quote]
Well, slowing things down based on packages in general is different than slowing things down on a specific individual basis due to the usage environment in a specific locale.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m in agreement here.
[quote]cueball wrote:
If the extra fee is based of the actual percentage of the pipe consumed by the provider and every provider gets charged a fee based on that scale, that seems more reasonable. Not just because one company has more to lose so they get held over a barrel.
.[/quote]
Yeah, If I were to be convinced this, and only this is what the regulation accomplishes, then fine, whatever, write it up.
THIS doesn’t have near the negative effects other things could, including letting ISP’s hold Netflix et al hostage.
i think this will answer a lot of questions
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/heres-comcast-netflix-deal-structured-numbers.html#disqus_thread
i think this will answer a lot of questions[/quote]
Soooo… There is zero need for this regulation then?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/heres-comcast-netflix-deal-structured-numbers.html#disqus_thread
i think this will answer a lot of questions[/quote]
Soooo… There is zero need for this regulation then?[/quote]
Pretty much.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/heres-comcast-netflix-deal-structured-numbers.html#disqus_thread
i think this will answer a lot of questions[/quote]
Soooo… There is zero need for this regulation then?[/quote]
Come on, what have we been saying? Power grab.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You’re making my point for me.
[/quote]
But I’m not Beans. Yes, of course, you prioritize the people that pay you the most, but your clients agree to pay you more free of coercion. From what I understand ISPs will force companies to pay more and if they don’t the ISPs will intentionally slow down their services.
That’s not the same thing.
Again, offer a fast lane for a fee and I’m totally cool. Force companies to pay the fee or have their speed throttled, not cool.
[quote]
We prioritize the people that pay us the most (and/re refer the most business) and apologize to the rest. If the government told me we couldn’t do this (net neutrality)… Well, we’d be fucked pretty damn fast, as no one would get done on time I guess. [/quote]
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You’re making my point for me.
[/quote]
But I’m not Beans. Yes, of course, you prioritize the people that pay you the most, but your clients agree to pay you more free of coercion.
[/quote]
There is zero difference between me charging a client a premium for enhanced service over those that pay less, and an ISP doing the same. Zero.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You’re making my point for me.
[/quote]
But I’m not Beans. Yes, of course, you prioritize the people that pay you the most, but your clients agree to pay you more free of coercion.
[/quote]
There is zero difference between me charging a client a premium for enhanced service over those that pay less, and an ISP doing the same. Zero. [/quote]
Agreed, if your client agrees to the premium. Your client could say no and go somewhere else.
There aren’t that many ISPs as far as I know. ISPs would be coercing their client into paying a premium or they will purposefully reducing the speed (throttling) their clients product’s reach their destination. Netflix, for example, will have zero choice in the matter. They will have to pay the fee or their business suffers.
That would be like if the IRS required public accounting firms to pay a fee to have their clients tax returns processed and if your firm refused to pay the fee then your clients returns are purposefully processed slower.
I’m having a hard time understanding why we’re butting heads hear. It’s like Obamacare, if you don’t have insurance through your work, and you don’t pay for Obamacare, you’re forced to pay a fee (tax), which is bullshit. Americans are being forced into a position with no freedom of choice. It’s essentially the same thing.
Again, if an ISP offers a faster option for a fee and Netflix declines then their product should reach their client at the agreed upon speed free from intentional speed manipulation.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
There aren’t that many ISPs as far as I know. [/quote]
And this regulation will ensure that remains the case.
According to the blog, this doesn’t happen, and you’re supporting legislation based on “feels”, because nothing you describe here actually happens.
Secondly, Netflix certainly has a choice.
Third, this is still no different than what happens with my clients, and the government hasn’t tried to step in and regulate my fees.
Both the IRS, and even more so the states, actually already do this. And then they fine us for falling in line with their demands.
Efile…
Because it’s fun?
lmao
No, more likely because you’re feeling your way through this one. You want the legislation to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, but may in the future.
lol, what?
How on Earth does a B2B contract between Netflix and Comcast = American’s have no freedom of choice?
I’m not sure where you’re going here man, but this is silly.
This is what happens now, except there is no pay for faster service option for Netflix.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And this regulation will ensure that remains the case. [/quote]
Possibly. Their isn’t that much competition now so I don’t see the issue.
[quote]
According to the blog, this doesn’t happen, and you’re supporting legislation based on “feels”, because nothing you describe here actually happens. [/quote]
What blog?
I’m not necessarily supporting legislation, I’m trying to understand the issue and the purpose of the legislation.
[quote]
Secondly, Netflix certainly has a choice.[/quote]
How so? If I use Comcast and Netflix isn’t Netflix forced to deal with Comcast since they’r emy provider?
[quote]
Third, this is still no different than what happens with my clients, and the government hasn’t tried to step in and regulate my fees. [/quote]
Sure it is. You can’t force your clients to pay a fee to expedite your services. An ISP basically can through speed manipulation.
Perhaps they do. You would know better than me on this.
Lol, I more so mean’t I’m not sure where we really disagree. I agree it’s fun otherwise I’d be elsewhere.
[quote]
No, more likely because you’re feeling your way through this one. You want the legislation to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, but may in the future. [/quote]
Like I said in a previous post, I think some legislation is good (wall-street) and some if bad (price of mile) and I’m not sure where this one falls, yet.
[quote]
lol, what?
How on Earth does a B2B contract between Netflix and Comcast = American’s have no freedom of choice?
I’m not sure where you’re going here man, but this is silly. [/quote]
Lol…
That is not what I said, I was talking about a very specific situation. A situation where Netflix is forced into a corner much like those that do not have insurance and don’t want Obamacare (they have no choice). Like I said, if I use Comcast and Netflix then Netflix has no choice except to deal with Comcast if they want to continue to have me as a client. It’s a rock and hard place situation for Netflix.
My issue is that an ISP, such as Comcast, gains an unfair advantage because they control the speed of data transmission and they offer content of their own. They have control of the market and unless you’re willing to play by their rules you’re business is negatively affected. For example, if Comcast (which is owned by NBC if I’m not mistaken) and Netflix both offer streaming of say the Pats game, but NBC.com streams at 50mb/s and Netflix streams at 10kb/s due to speed manipulation who on God’s green earth is going to use Netflix? No one of course.
I don’t know how accurate this is:
however, if it’s accurate content providers have very little choice in what ISPs they deal with.