techi.com— For some time now, net neutrality has been a 'cause celebre' for web geeks. The idea - that all traffic on the internet should be treated equally,
Nov 4, 2010View in Crawl 4
Last year it was Bittorrent that would kill net neutrality. The simple fact is that there will always be a disparity between users on the Internet. This 2% using 30% is not a new thing.
Well, the 98% still shouldn't have to pay for the 2%.
I just love how Diggers are up in arms that cable providers are't forced to offer EVERY channel "ala carte" but they want the internet to be an all you can eat buffet style. ALL becuase it benefits them. Pure hypocrisy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
You confuse amount of usage and ability to use Internet connection capacity. Hence, your comparison with channel-by-channel cable TV is inaccurate. Proper comparison is between TV addict who watches TV 24/7 and person subscribing to the same cable service watching 2-3 hrs per day. Both have access to the same programming 24/7, that is why they pay the same. If you pay for 2Mbps Internet connection and some avid Netflixer has the same - you should pay the same. Fact that he has more use of it is not the problem as long as you are allowed to use 2Mbps 24/7 if you wish. Internet traffic is not electricity or water 'by the amount". It is access to data.
Opponents of net neutrality would have that 2% pay massive fees for marginally better service. I am sick of service providers being willing to sell residential customers massive bandwidth but then complain when they actually use it all.
This article makes the common mistake of confusing traffic with bandwidth. 20% of all internet traffic maybe Netflix, but that says nothing about what % of bandwidth it's actually using. The main pipes on the internet have much more capacity than we are actually using. The biggest problem is the last mile to the house. But Netflix isn't going to be causing issues with that. Even the HD streams are only taking up 4-5 Mbps. Comcast and the other ISP's may not be able to deliver the promised 12-30 Mbps that they are charging you for, but they should be able to handle most of their customers using the lower amount just fine.
Yes...and you have all the facts and numbers from your research to make that statement. And hey...supposed you ANd your neighbors all want to stream an Hd movie? AND the house across the street wants to download the latest Linux distribution.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
well ill tell ya one thing. my bandwidth WONT be going to netflix unless they dramatically improve their movie selection in canada. its absolutely horrendous.
good thing we're not on copper wires anymore! My 33.6k modem (never got to use the 56k stuff) was always running hot. At least I didn't have to pay by-the-minute for the local phone calls (to my isp).
i realize that when I was using dial-up, the national backbone was already optical, but the last mile wasn't.
I love how social outcasts think that everyone has Netflix. They don't. Most people don't becuase most poeple don't feel the need to rent several movies a monthComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I don't understand how so many technical journalists can persist in being so technically clueless.
The principle of net neutrality is that network providers can only supply the pipe. They can't discriminate about what content travels along the pipe.
If you're a very naive technical journalist, you might leap to the conclusion that under net neutrality we're all doomed. Some app or another is going to come along and saturate the network and ruin things for everyone.
But that's not how the network operates. Networks saturate because they're being used to capacity. The capacity of a particular network segment doesn't just exist for no reason. It was built to meet a demand. The demand means that you, as a network provider, have peers or subscribers who want bandwidth, and you've agreed to provide it. If you've promised to carry ten peers at 100Mb/s, or 1000 subscribers at 1Mb/s, then you need 1Gb/s of capacity.
Now ten more peers show up. Do you (a) build out more network to accommodate this wonderful growth in business or (b) sign them up anyway but do nothing to improve your network, so that everyone is pissed off? Or (c) do no buildout at all, but secretly apply some traffic shaping so that certain content is favored, thus pissing off some people but not others?
Net neutrality is simply saying that it's not cool to do (c). Your remaining options are (a) or (b). Doing (a) is honest business and will make everyone happy. Yes, it does require you to meet your bandwidth commitments. Yes, it does mean that as network demand grows, we have to build more network capacity. It sure would be nice to get something for nothing, but that's not realistic, and it's not honest business.
I'll probably get buried for this, but I don't understand the complaint about bandwidth-specific pricing. Net neutrality simply states that we shouldn't discriminate between the different traffic traveling over the internet. How is charging based on bandwidth discriminating between traffic? Yes, it means that media is more expensive than text, but to call that discrimination is like calling discrimination when a color print-out costs more than a B&W print-out. To me, net neutrality only means that traffic cannot be blocked based on content, not that all content should cost the same.
You can't compare digital bits to something from the real world. A better analogy would water. If you live in a house you get a bill for water you use. What if the water for your shower cost more than water for your toilet? How could you justify that? Bits are bits and it does not matter what they turn into.
Just to make a point I find amusing, I just looked at my utility bill.
Water: $/unit: .0024
Wastewater: $/unit: .0038
Technically, the water from my shower and toilet is more expensive than if I drank the water and peed on my lawn. So my water from my shower/toilet is cheaper than the water from my faucet... Well, unless I started drinking from those.
I'm not sure why the fact that the 80/20 principle applies to the internet shocks people. 20% of the people are going to use 80% of the bandwidth. 20% of the apps are going to use 80% of the bandwidth. I remember the chicken little sky is falling when they said that 25% of all net surfing is now craigslist. Then BT killed everything. Now netflix kills everything blah blah blah. Man up and grow a backbone. (I mean that literally.. get a few more fiber backbones)
I could theoretically use 10GB/mo on a dial-up connection. Having a 30GB/mo bandwidth cap should cost no more than $10/mo, otherwise the service is unattractive from a price-value perspective.
NetZero @ 33.6k = free!
Universal Lifeline telephone service = $5/mo.
Local-only telephone service ~ $12/mo, but you also got local phone.
Now we have cell phones that are faster than dial-up. There are many ways to compare, but the low limits should be ridiculed. The government needs to regulate in areas suffering from ISP monopolies. **** con-cast! and similar ISPs.
More bandwidth not supplied and paid for by customers who are already paying more than enough for phone, cable and satellite. Great business, great profits, make everyone happy supply more value. Do the right thing. Earn some respect.
I thought that the article was going to get against net neutrality, so I was somewhat surprised when it completely shifted gears in the second half, in favor of it. Only ignorant consumers and corporations are against net neutrality: it would converted yet another system to being power-based. It's a false dichotomy between balancing bandwidth usage or keeping things as they are: we need to continue to build up network infrastructure and technology so that bandwidth is not a looming issue.
bionicvskungfuNov 5, 2010
Last year it was Bittorrent that would kill net neutrality. The simple fact is that there will always be a disparity between users on the Internet. This 2% using 30% is not a new thing.
Closed AccountNov 5, 2010
Well, the 98% still shouldn't have to pay for the 2%.
I just love how Diggers are up in arms that cable providers are't forced to offer EVERY channel "ala carte" but they want the internet to be an all you can eat buffet style. ALL becuase it benefits them. Pure hypocrisy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
followsregulatorguyNov 5, 2010
Spelling errors:
are't
becuase
dusanmalNov 5, 2010
You confuse amount of usage and ability to use Internet connection capacity. Hence, your comparison with channel-by-channel cable TV is inaccurate. Proper comparison is between TV addict who watches TV 24/7 and person subscribing to the same cable service watching 2-3 hrs per day. Both have access to the same programming 24/7, that is why they pay the same. If you pay for 2Mbps Internet connection and some avid Netflixer has the same - you should pay the same. Fact that he has more use of it is not the problem as long as you are allowed to use 2Mbps 24/7 if you wish. Internet traffic is not electricity or water 'by the amount". It is access to data.
bionicvskungfuNov 5, 2010
Opponents of net neutrality would have that 2% pay massive fees for marginally better service. I am sick of service providers being willing to sell residential customers massive bandwidth but then complain when they actually use it all.
andrewrbeckNov 5, 2010
This article makes the common mistake of confusing traffic with bandwidth. 20% of all internet traffic maybe Netflix, but that says nothing about what % of bandwidth it's actually using. The main pipes on the internet have much more capacity than we are actually using. The biggest problem is the last mile to the house. But Netflix isn't going to be causing issues with that. Even the HD streams are only taking up 4-5 Mbps. Comcast and the other ISP's may not be able to deliver the promised 12-30 Mbps that they are charging you for, but they should be able to handle most of their customers using the lower amount just fine.
Closed AccountNov 5, 2010
Yes...and you have all the facts and numbers from your research to make that statement. And hey...supposed you ANd your neighbors all want to stream an Hd movie? AND the house across the street wants to download the latest Linux distribution.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
maniakmykeNov 5, 2010
well ill tell ya one thing. my bandwidth WONT be going to netflix unless they dramatically improve their movie selection in canada. its absolutely horrendous.
waleedoNov 5, 2010
hope so
jeworldNov 5, 2010
While I agree bandwidth usage will continue to rise, so will the capacity and speed.
ksadyaNov 5, 2010
good thing we're not on copper wires anymore! My 33.6k modem (never got to use the 56k stuff) was always running hot. At least I didn't have to pay by-the-minute for the local phone calls (to my isp).
i realize that when I was using dial-up, the national backbone was already optical, but the last mile wasn't.
oldsguruNov 5, 2010
Damn you netflix users.
Closed AccountNov 5, 2010
I love how social outcasts think that everyone has Netflix. They don't. Most people don't becuase most poeple don't feel the need to rent several movies a monthComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
followsregulatorguyNov 5, 2010
Spelling errors:
becuase
Closed AccountNov 5, 2010
what made you not kill yourselfthis morning?
Oh yeah...the fact that I exist! So, your life is only worthwhile because of me.
followsregulatorguyNov 5, 2010
Spelling errors:
yourselfthis
Closed AccountNov 5, 2010
you missed people
starfishsystemsNov 5, 2010
I don't understand how so many technical journalists can persist in being so technically clueless.
The principle of net neutrality is that network providers can only supply the pipe. They can't discriminate about what content travels along the pipe.
If you're a very naive technical journalist, you might leap to the conclusion that under net neutrality we're all doomed. Some app or another is going to come along and saturate the network and ruin things for everyone.
But that's not how the network operates. Networks saturate because they're being used to capacity. The capacity of a particular network segment doesn't just exist for no reason. It was built to meet a demand. The demand means that you, as a network provider, have peers or subscribers who want bandwidth, and you've agreed to provide it. If you've promised to carry ten peers at 100Mb/s, or 1000 subscribers at 1Mb/s, then you need 1Gb/s of capacity.
Now ten more peers show up. Do you (a) build out more network to accommodate this wonderful growth in business or (b) sign them up anyway but do nothing to improve your network, so that everyone is pissed off? Or (c) do no buildout at all, but secretly apply some traffic shaping so that certain content is favored, thus pissing off some people but not others?
Net neutrality is simply saying that it's not cool to do (c). Your remaining options are (a) or (b). Doing (a) is honest business and will make everyone happy. Yes, it does require you to meet your bandwidth commitments. Yes, it does mean that as network demand grows, we have to build more network capacity. It sure would be nice to get something for nothing, but that's not realistic, and it's not honest business.
haxinatorNov 5, 2010
This is the best comment I've seen on digg in a long time.
glanzerNov 8, 2010
Ditto that, nice job starfish.
canyoucountNov 5, 2010
But if we don't protect the existing vested interests, they'll have to innovate to preserve their profit margins!
alexgrn7Nov 5, 2010
nice digg
dezhollingNov 5, 2010
I'll probably get buried for this, but I don't understand the complaint about bandwidth-specific pricing. Net neutrality simply states that we shouldn't discriminate between the different traffic traveling over the internet. How is charging based on bandwidth discriminating between traffic? Yes, it means that media is more expensive than text, but to call that discrimination is like calling discrimination when a color print-out costs more than a B&W print-out. To me, net neutrality only means that traffic cannot be blocked based on content, not that all content should cost the same.
racer42Nov 5, 2010
You can't compare digital bits to something from the real world. A better analogy would water. If you live in a house you get a bill for water you use. What if the water for your shower cost more than water for your toilet? How could you justify that? Bits are bits and it does not matter what they turn into.
optigonNov 6, 2010
Just to make a point I find amusing, I just looked at my utility bill.
Water: $/unit: .0024
Wastewater: $/unit: .0038
Technically, the water from my shower and toilet is more expensive than if I drank the water and peed on my lawn. So my water from my shower/toilet is cheaper than the water from my faucet... Well, unless I started drinking from those.
twoblinkNov 5, 2010
I'm not sure why the fact that the 80/20 principle applies to the internet shocks people. 20% of the people are going to use 80% of the bandwidth. 20% of the apps are going to use 80% of the bandwidth. I remember the chicken little sky is falling when they said that 25% of all net surfing is now craigslist. Then BT killed everything. Now netflix kills everything blah blah blah. Man up and grow a backbone. (I mean that literally.. get a few more fiber backbones)
ksadyaNov 5, 2010
I could theoretically use 10GB/mo on a dial-up connection. Having a 30GB/mo bandwidth cap should cost no more than $10/mo, otherwise the service is unattractive from a price-value perspective.
NetZero @ 33.6k = free!
Universal Lifeline telephone service = $5/mo.
Local-only telephone service ~ $12/mo, but you also got local phone.
Now we have cell phones that are faster than dial-up. There are many ways to compare, but the low limits should be ridiculed. The government needs to regulate in areas suffering from ISP monopolies. **** con-cast! and similar ISPs.
richmcg5Nov 6, 2010
More bandwidth not supplied and paid for by customers who are already paying more than enough for phone, cable and satellite. Great business, great profits, make everyone happy supply more value. Do the right thing. Earn some respect.
bernlin2000Nov 6, 2010
I thought that the article was going to get against net neutrality, so I was somewhat surprised when it completely shifted gears in the second half, in favor of it. Only ignorant consumers and corporations are against net neutrality: it would converted yet another system to being power-based. It's a false dichotomy between balancing bandwidth usage or keeping things as they are: we need to continue to build up network infrastructure and technology so that bandwidth is not a looming issue.