accord1999 wrote:It's not net neutrality, since net neutrality is not about peering agreements.
It's mainly about Netflix and ISPs arguing about delivery costs of data.
SuperSpy wrote:Netflix pays it's share of the delivery costs, just to it's own ISPs (Level3, Cogent, etc). End users pay for their data from their own ISP. Comcast, Verizon and co. are trying to double-dip, making Netflix pay for connections it's customers are already paying for.
The Consumerist wrote:As we’ve pointed out before, the issue of peering was not covered by the recently gutted net neutrality rules. Those guidelines only dealt with whether an ISP deliberately blocked/throttled or unfairly prioritized traffic to a website. The congestion at peering ports occurs further upstream and is a matter of capacity
steelcity_ballin wrote:In short, Verizon started shaping all my content and slowing it down.
steelcity_ballin wrote:Comcast is no better, and there is no real choice, that's an illusion
steelcity_ballin wrote:Net Neutrality really is the defining free speech issue of my generation I believe.
steelcity_ballin wrote:And I believe we're losing. I won't take this any further in RnP but I feel like we lost this country a long time ago to corporations, lobbyist, and the almighty dollar.
steelcity_ballin wrote:The FCC is run by a former cable lobbyist FFS, how much more conflict of interest can you have in your job?
steelcity_ballin wrote:Why are decisions about these sorts of things handled by judges and courts that are woefully unprepared and uneducated with respect to what exactly is at stake, the implications, and the technology behind these things?
steelcity_ballin wrote:The system needs an overhaul, especially with as fast as technology transforms our daily lives. Anyone with 1/4 a brain can look at the state of the internet in our country and tell you how much better it could be
superjawes wrote:1. Write the FCC/Congress/etc. You have a chance to exercise your speech and let everyone know that you aren't happy about the current state of net neutrality rules (or lack thereof). Make some noise and someone might notice and realize that this issue might need some actual action.
superjawes wrote:2. The good news is that Netflix, while small in the context of all coporations, still has a lot of money. So does Google. So do many companies who rely on the transfer of data to customers. These companies are going to be generating the same sort of noise to get legal attention, and "ISP shaming" is part of that.
notfred wrote:I can't see how there could be a drop in speeds other than by ignoring Net Neutrality and there's a significant drop in the USA line at the end of last year, it seems to be picking up now.
notfred wrote:I'm with TekSavvy, and as a Third Party ISP they run over the last mile provided by Bell Canada DSL and Rogers Cable but then have their own backbone and peering. What's interesting is that they beat both of those ISPs significantly, showing that the problem isn't in the last mile connectivity to the house.
Beomagi wrote:They cut a deal because they had to no?
WaPo wrote:This hilarious graph of Netflix speeds shows the importance of net neutrality
WaPo wrote:As the Federal Communications Commission considers new rules on whether service providers can charge popular Web sites additional fees to carry their traffic, advocates for consumers worry that deals like Netflix’s with Comcast will become common throughout the industry.
Beomagi wrote:Comcast started throttling them and they paid them off to stop in January.
Beomagi wrote:How accurate is this?
http://mashable.com/2014/06/02/john-oli ... -main-link
Mashable wrote:After tearing into the FCC, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and the Obama administration, Oliver called for help from someone unexpected — Internet trolls. Oliver pointed viewers (and, more importantly, web commenters) to visit
beomagi wrote:So, thanks for keeping your cool!
beomagi wrote:Basically, Netflix's issues are not related to net neutrality because they're rolling out their own content delivery network.
beomagi wrote:"Up until 2012, Netflix primarily relied on third-party content delivery networks, or CDNs, such as Limelight Networks, Level 3, and Akamai to deliver content. In 2012, Netflix rolled out its own CDN called Open Connect. This is when things got tricky. Operating a CDN means you have to buy transit from multiple providers to connect to ISP networks."
UnfriendlyFire wrote:There were times where my ISP, Mediacom, would throttle my 12 Mb/s connection.
On occasions, Youtube would repeatedly default to 360p or 240p due to "low internet speed". Yet as Youtube is running, I would run Speedtest, and it would report that my download speed is over 15 Mb/s, sometimes closer to 20 Mb/s. That's plenty enough bandwidth to handle 1080p. When I open up Youtube's bandwidth meter while the video is running, the download speed would be 18 kb/s to 54 kb/s.
UnfriendlyFire wrote:But for this slowdown to occur at least once a week, outside of regular heavy internet usage times (5pm to 10pm)? I should've seen reports about Youtube being that slow by now.
UnfriendlyFire wrote:EDIT: I don't have Netflix, but if Mediacom is ballsy enough to annoy Google, I wouldn't be surprised if they pull the same stunt on a smaller company.
druidcent wrote:Not arguing with Glorious about Net Neutrality, but wanted to go off on a tangent.. Could part of the problem be the local monopolies which currently exist in the US?
I thought John Oliver did a pretty good job at pointing out the hypocrisy of the ISPs (re: TWC and Comcast merger). While he may not have the Net Neutrality quite right, it's worth a watch (at least for the humor value).
Back to my argument about local monopolies being the issue, and what can be done to resolve them. In most areas where there is competition (re: Google Fiber) prices and products greatly expanded... (I think this may be true in UK/Europe). I know when we bought our house, we were told our only options for internet were Comcast and AT&T. My friend about 5 miles north had a local ISP who offered way better service and prices. When I contacted them, they said they weren't allowed to service our area.
Is it too late to break up the ISPs?
cynan wrote:Through their DNS server?
Airmantharp wrote:cynan wrote:Through their DNS server?
Am I missing something here? What level of streaming traffic actually flows through DNS servers?
(I am quite aware of what a DNS server is, which is why I'm asking the seemingly 'dumb' question)
First of all, what is the Netflix ISP Speed Index even showing? Average streaming speed to the customer? Through their DNS server?
Netflix wrote:"These ratings reflect the average performance of all Netflix streams on each ISPs network from Nov. 2012 through Jun. 2014 and average performance during prime time starting in Oct. 2013. The average is well below the peak performance due to many factors including the variety of encodes we use to deliver the TV shows and movies we carry as well as home Wi-Fi and the variety of devices our members use. Those factors cancel out when comparing across ISPs, so these relative rankings are a good indicator of the consistent performance typically experienced across all users on an ISP network."
cynan wrote:The sources Glorious provides seem informative. But I think the only thing we can take away for certain is that neither side is interested in total transparency to the customer. While superficially appearing informative, however, even the streamingmedia article presented offers little data that can be backed up by any appreciable source. But perhaps that's because these just don't exist.
cynan wrote:I do agree that there does seem to be a lot of ignorance and general confusion between the Netflix issue and the current tabled issue of whether the FCC will allow ISPs to charge for "paid internet fast lanes". On the other hand they sort of deserve what they are getting. if these companies really cared about the truth/transparency to customers (either companies like Comcast or Netflix), rather than trying to use tactics to obfuscate or make themselves appear the victim to leverage a better deal over the other guy then, as the streamingmedia article suggests, they could provide more transparent data to back up their claims. Nobody seems interested in doing this. Until this happens, this can only continue as fodder for media fanfare/baseless accusations.
cynan wrote:Woops. That was pretty nonsensical. No traffic that I know of. What I was trying differentiate between was whether these numbers reflect streaming to central switching equipment (where the "backbone" terminates). Or whether they also include "last mile", ie, past the CMTS for cable or DSLAM for DSL. Please ignore.
cynan wrote:Woops. That was pretty nonsensical. No traffic that I know of. What I was trying differentiate between was whether these numbers reflect streaming to central switching equipment (where the "backbone" terminates). Or whether they also include "last mile", ie, past the CMTS for cable or DSLAM for DSL.
cynan wrote:Are you referring to how the DNS server you are connected through routes ISP requests? Or are you referring to the selection of the DNS server by the local router? I know that I get more consistent performance if I turn off dynamic DNS in my router and enter the DNS servers of my ISP directly. How connection requests are routed beyond that is up to my ISP (which usually does a better job than my relatively cheapo router).
Glorious wrote:druidcent wrote:Heck, just to note (not to pick on) UnfriendlyFire, he suspected his ISP of throttling Youtube. But the allegation against Comcast/Verizon in regards to Netflix at least has the clear subtext that Verizon/Comcast don't want competition over TV services, which they provide to their captive consumers. You know, the conspiracy revolves around a clear motive.
But unless Mediacom was competing with youtube, why would they bother? What's the motive?
It's all conflated together, to point of complete and utter confusion. And yet everyone keeps hopping on the bandwagon, despite the fact that driver and all of the passengers are all babbling incoherently and drooling on themselves.