Trump Planning On Turning Internet Into Toll Road

[Dr.Sack]

Trump's FCC chairman Ajit Pai is in favor of dismantling net neutrality.

 

How would you be impacted?

 

www.technologyreview.com/s/603432/what-happens-if-net-neutrality-goes-away/amp/

[ExiledInIllinois]

Interesting topic. Not sure where I stand. Where does a place (board owner) stand on it? Would it help or hurt this place? Or not make a difference?

[GG]

Gee aother moron who doesn't know how to use the search function

[Greg F]

Interesting topic. Not sure where I stand. Where does a place (board owner) stand on it? Would it help or hurt this place? Or not make a difference?

 

Not being able to prioritize traffic is about the dumbest thing you could propose. See VoIP.

[IDBillzFan]

Hey Nut...are you a leader of the meltdown movement, or just an eager participant? Because the threads you're starting are pure epic meltdown stuff.

 

I mean truly epic. Keep it up.

 

Sincerely,

 

Trump/Pence 2020

Edited January 30, 2017 by LABillzFan

[mead107]

True news or made up news.

[OCinBuffalo]

This board is highly educated on net neutrality. I've helped see to that.

 

So, they already know they won't be impacted. Or, if they are, they know that their ISP bills won't go up now, as they would have under net neutrality, because Google, Netflix et al had bought up most of the bandwidth on the cheap via bulk purchase, and crowded the rest of the market into paying inflated prices for what is left.

 

It's supply and demand 101. There is a fixed supply of bandwidth today. While it is true that tomorrow, literally, there will be a small increase in supply, it will take years(a decade?) to be at a place where we have surplus bandwidth. The big software companies want to buy up most of the supply at reduced/fixed rates. The hardware companies want to charge them more, via preferential access, because if they don't, they have to charge their other customer's more to make up the difference...and...they also want to rent-seek on Google/Amazon/Netflix. Rent-seek: take a cut of Amazon's success, by charging a toll for all the bandwith they use.

 

The hadware companies are absolutely not looking to charge a toll on OUR bandwidth.The accounting/billing alone makes it not worth doing(remember when paying for texting was done by the text? Yeah, the accounting staff and systems required to charge that way cost 5x what they were making instead of just doing unlimited texting) If anything they are in steep competition to get us to pay for set amounts of bandwidth, that most days we don't use. They are balancing price vs usage. They gamble that we won't use what we pay for, so, they can drop their price for more/the same, and compete against each other.

 

That's why: when you call the cable company and B word, automagically, you seem to get higher speeds/less outages. They have the bandwidth on hand, it's just that you weren't demanding what you paid for, until you did. That's also why they are so willing to give you a free month as compensation. It's peanuts, as long as you keep paying the next month and beyond.

 

The whole thing is merely business being business. There is no moral high ground here. What there is: a bunch of donors on both sides that are paying both sides to make this into a political issue, complete with a phony moral component.

 

This is a lie.

[DC Tom]

This board is highly educated on net neutrality. I've GG and Azalin helped see to that.

 

Jesus H !@#$ing Christ on a pony, you are full of yourself.

[boyst]

This board is highly educated on net neutrality. I've helped see to that.

 

So, they already know they won't be impacted. Or, if they are, they know that their ISP bills won't go up now, as they would have under net neutrality, because Google, Netflix et al had bought up most of the bandwidth on the cheap via bulk purchase, and crowded the rest of the market into paying inflated prices for what is left.

 

It's supply and demand 101. There is a fixed supply of bandwidth today. While it is true that tomorrow, literally, there will be a small increase in supply, it will take years(a decade?) to be at a place where we have surplus bandwidth. The big software companies want to buy up most of the supply at reduced/fixed rates. The hardware companies want to charge them more, via preferential access, because if they don't, they have to charge their other customer's more to make up the difference...and...they also want to rent-seek on Google/Amazon/Netflix. Rent-seek: take a cut of Amazon's success, by charging a toll for all the bandwith they use.

 

The hadware companies are absolutely not looking to charge a toll on OUR bandwidth.The accounting/billing alone makes it not worth doing(remember when paying for texting was done by the text? Yeah, the accounting staff and systems required to charge that way cost 5x what they were making instead of just doing unlimited texting) If anything they are in steep competition to get us to pay for set amounts of bandwidth, that most days we don't use. They are balancing price vs usage. They gamble that we won't use what we pay for, so, they can drop their price for more/the same, and compete against each other.

 

That's why: when you call the cable company and B word, automagically, you seem to get higher speeds/less outages. They have the bandwidth on hand, it's just that you weren't demanding what you paid for, until you did. That's also why they are so willing to give you a free month as compensation. It's peanuts, as long as you keep paying the next month and beyond.

 

The whole thing is merely business being business. There is no moral high ground here. What there is: a bunch of donors on both sides that are paying both sides to make this into a political issue, complete with a phony moral component.

 

This is a lie.

the only part of net neutrality being voided out is that they can then channel information and make only certain sites accessible for free vs. a premium.

 

we see it all the time and it won't be long before netflix does this. if you want access to your isp you can get google fiber 10mb for free. or 100mb for more. but if you go 10mb you can only go to certain sites they control. other sites they don't want you on will be slowed down. say vimeo instead of youtube. say time warner cuts a deal with verizon to allow a bundle to exist that when you use it you get a free streaming ability with your verizon that doesn't cost data - well, if time warner ever decided they wanted to cut out other news programming and information pieces to slant an agenda even more so than it spells doom

 

there must be a level of protection for the media content that i cannot even believe i am saying. with "fake news" being swallowed up by the masses its a dangerous edge we could teeter on.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Gee aother moron who doesn't know how to use the search function

Not sticking up for then... But the search function on this site has always been "cumbersome." IMO, not user friendly One thing that could be set up a little better... Especially member search. Not complaining though & understand it is the product of the board being utilized.

[GG]

 

Jesus H !@#$ing Christ on a pony, you are full of yourself.

Never mind how momentarily wrong his treatise is.

 

So if bandwidth is really at a fixed point now, why are ISPs willing to give away upper tiers for no extra cost to keep the subscriber?

[OCinBuffalo]

 

Jesus H !@#$ing Christ on a pony, you are full of yourself.

Are you F'ing high? "I've helped" doesn't mean "I alone". Only somebody who has a particular derangement is blind to the difference in meaning. The truth is: I have written a ton on this issue.

 

Unmitigated moron.

Never mind how momentarily wrong his treatise is.

 

So if bandwidth is really at a fixed point now, why are ISPs willing to give away upper tiers for no extra cost to keep the subscriber?

Another unmitigated moron.

 

Re-read what I said. It is at a fixed point. at ANY point in time. This does not mean that the point won't increase over time or, "literally, tomorrow"-->which is literally what I wrote.

 

You still don't get it. They are willing to "give away" upper tiers...because they are just as willing to gamble that you don't use them fully.

 

Now, surely a Wall Street person has the understanding of what the word "gamble" means, right?

 

EDIT: And praytell, why does TIme Warner have "Business Class" which costs 2x what normal cable does? Why do they have tiers in their consumer offering at all? This is bandwidth. Clearly a concept you don't understand at all. Do you really think that if I am consuming bandwidth right now, and nobody else in my range is, that the cable company is going to slow me down, because I am getting higher speeds than I am supposed to get?

 

If you do you are a complete buffoon. No. It is in the cable company's interest to clear my request as soon as possible, making room for potential new requests, as soon as possible. These "classes" that you are clinging to as some sort of point? They only exist as a way to get people to pay more...for what 4/5 times they are going to get anyway, given their usage.

Edited January 31, 2017 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

Are you F'ing high? "I've helped" doesn't mean "I alone". Only somebody who has a particular derangement is blind to the difference in meaning. The truth is: I have written a ton on this issue.

 

Unmitigated moron.

Another unmitigated moron.

 

Re-read what I said. It is at a fixed point. at ANY point in time. This does not mean that the point won't increase over time or, "literally, tomorrow"-->which is literally what I wrote.

 

You still don't get it. They are willing to "give away" upper tiers...because they are just as willing to gamble that you don't use them fully.

 

Now, surely a Wall Street person has the understanding of what the word "gamble" means, right?

 

EDIT: And praytell, why does TIme Warner have "Business Class" which costs 2x what normal cable does? Why do they have tiers in their consumer offering at all? This is bandwidth. Clearly a concept you don't understand at all. Do you really think that if I am consuming bandwidth right now, and nobody else in my range is, that the cable company is going to slow me down, because I am getting higher speeds than I am supposed to get?

 

If you do you are a complete buffoon. No. It is in the cable company's interest to clear my request as soon as possible, making room for potential new requests, as soon as possible. These "classes" that you are clinging to as some sort of point? They only exist as a way to get people to pay more...for what 4/5 times they are going to get anyway, given their usage.

[This is an automated response.]

 

 

Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.61.

[OCinBuffalo]

[This is an automated response.]

 

 

Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.61.

Yeah, and you are once again defeated by your own willingness to be fast, rather than accurate.

 

Reading comprehension is important.

Edited January 31, 2017 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

Yeah, and you are once again defeated by your own willingness to be fast, rather than accurate.

 

Reading comprehension is important.

[This is an automated response.]

 

You're an idiot.

 

Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.61.

[OCinBuffalo]

the only part of net neutrality being voided out is that they can then channel information and make only certain sites accessible for free vs. a premium.

 

we see it all the time and it won't be long before netflix does this. if you want access to your isp you can get google fiber 10mb for free. or 100mb for more. but if you go 10mb you can only go to certain sites they control. other sites they don't want you on will be slowed down. say vimeo instead of youtube. say time warner cuts a deal with verizon to allow a bundle to exist that when you use it you get a free streaming ability with your verizon that doesn't cost data - well, if time warner ever decided they wanted to cut out other news programming and information pieces to slant an agenda even more so than it spells doom

 

there must be a level of protection for the media content that i cannot even believe i am saying. with "fake news" being swallowed up by the masses its a dangerous edge we could teeter on.

The chances that verizon or any of the above is more interested in cutting away stories/slowing you down, rather than charging $ to see stories/keeping you fast? Negligible. So, you've identified a possible but highly unlikely issue.

 

There is simply no money in these conspiracy theories. Again, I remind you that the accounting staff/traffic monitoring necessary to throttle bandwidth depending on every single user's current url at this micron, vs the next micron? It's cost idiocy. You'd have to have legions of machines and legions of people to do that. Nobody is going to spend $100 to make a nickel, and those are the actual #s, and literally what would be necessary.

 

Don't tell me software is the answer here either. The architecture necessary to do this from the software side is untenable, and pointless. Hell, the database updates every minute, just to keep track of the adds/deletes of accounts/usage changes because somebody bought one of GG's "tiers" would consume way more resources in people and tech than can be justified.

 

Look: you know what this smells like? It smells like marketing people. Word to the wise: marketing people are 99% of the cause of IT problems. Their constant bungling interference is why the Obamacare "website"(it was never a website, it was a massive enterprise integration) failed, it is why the IPhone App business will die soon, and its why none of what you are saying is ever going to happen.

 

They love making unkeepable promises. They think ideas are all that is required, and that engineering is for the little people. Even if everything you say comes to pass? The systems necessary WILL crash in on themselves, precisely due to the ridiculous requirements imposed by marketing people. Exactly like Obamacare did.

[This is an automated response.]

 

You're an idiot.

 

Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.61.

Call me an idiot again, I dare you.

[meazza]

You're an idiot.

[OCinBuffalo]

You're an idiot.

Call me an idiot again, I dare you.

[GG]

Are you F'ing high? "I've helped" doesn't mean "I alone". Only somebody who has a particular derangement is blind to the difference in meaning. The truth is: I have written a ton on this issue.

 

Unmitigated moron.

 

Another unmitigated moron.

 

Re-read what I said. It is at a fixed point. at ANY point in time. This does not mean that the point won't increase over time or, "literally, tomorrow"-->which is literally what I wrote.

 

You still don't get it. They are willing to "give away" upper tiers...because they are just as willing to gamble that you don't use them fully.

 

Now, surely a Wall Street person has the understanding of what the word "gamble" means, right?

 

EDIT: And praytell, why does TIme Warner have "Business Class" which costs 2x what normal cable does? Why do they have tiers in their consumer offering at all? This is bandwidth. Clearly a concept you don't understand at all. Do you really think that if I am consuming bandwidth right now, and nobody else in my range is, that the cable company is going to slow me down, because I am getting higher speeds than I am supposed to get?

 

If you do you are a complete buffoon. No. It is in the cable company's interest to clear my request as soon as possible, making room for potential new requests, as soon as possible. These "classes" that you are clinging to as some sort of point? They only exist as a way to get people to pay more...for what 4/5 times they are going to get anyway, given their usage.

Bla bla bla bla. I'm great. I know it all. Even the crap I'm totally wrong about. Bla bla bla.

 

Your contributions to the net neutrality discussions are summarized in the above line. You coudn't be more wrong about what you just wrote, but please tell us again how we don't understand our business.

[OCinBuffalo]

Bla bla bla bla. I'm great. I know it all. Even the crap I'm totally wrong about. Bla bla bla.

 

Your contributions to the net neutrality discussions are summarized in the above line. You coudn't be more wrong about what you just wrote, but please tell us again how we don't understand our business.

What exactly am I wrong about?

 

You can't say, because you don't know.

 

EDIT: No, seriously, I might be wrong about something above....but you can't say, because you don't know.

Edited January 31, 2017 by OCinBuffalo

[Greg F]

EDIT: And praytell, why does TIme Warner have "Business Class" which costs 2x what normal cable does? Why do they have tiers in their consumer offering at all? This is bandwidth. Clearly a concept you don't understand at all. Do you really think that if I am consuming bandwidth right now, and nobody else in my range is, that the cable company is going to slow me down, because I am getting higher speeds than I am supposed to get?

 

Time Warner (now Spectrum) sets your max speed based on what tier you are paying for. I have run speed tests on hundreds of Time Warner connections for customers and the results are always consistent with the tier they are paying for. It you are suppose to get 5 up you might get 5.2 on a good day. The speeds tend to run a little higher then the quoted tier speeds.

[GG]

What exactly am I wrong about?

 

You can't say, because you don't know.

 

EDIT: No, seriously, I might be wrong about something above....but you can't say, because you don't know.

How about everything, especially how and why the providers tier their service.

 

Stick to talking about yourself. You're good at that.

[4merper4mer]

Are you F'ing high? "I've helped" doesn't mean "I alone". Only somebody who has a particular derangement is blind to the difference in meaning. The truth is: I have written a ton on this issue.

 

.

It would take 317 pages for you to describe how to pour a glass of water so you'll excuse me if I'm skeptical that the ton of writing you've done has helped.

[OCinBuffalo]

How about everything, especially how and why the providers tier their service.

 

Stick to talking about yourself. You're good at that.

Be more specific. How and why do they tier their service? Do you think they've got a throttle just for you? Answer that question.

It would take 317 pages for you to describe how to pour a glass of water so you'll excuse me if I'm skeptical that the ton of writing you've done has helped.

Your standard babble isn't adding anything to the discussion as per normal.

 

I heard somebody needs a pun over at OTW. Why don't you see if you can help them out.

[GG]

Be more specific. How and why do they tier their service? Do you think they've got a throttle just for you? Answer that question.

Your standard babble isn't adding anything to the discussion as per normal.

 

I heard somebody needs a pun over at OTW. Why don't you see if you can help them out.

Why do airlines have different classes of service for different prices on the same airplane, but then give free upgrades to certain customers? Why do bartenders give you a round on the house if you're there for more than a few hrs/

 

Moron.

[4merper4mer]

Your standard babble isn't adding anything to the discussion as per normal.

 

I heard somebody needs a pun over at OTW. Why don't you see if you can help them out.

This is a discussion that no one can really add too because you've turned it into your own dissertation of how great you are.......again.

 

And nobody can add to that discussion because your greatness is clearly infinite.......and one cannot add to infinity.

[OCinBuffalo]

This is a discussion that no one can really add too because you've turned it into your own dissertation of how great you are.......again.

 

And nobody can add to that discussion because your greatness is clearly infinite.......and one cannot add to infinity.

Nah. Speak for yourself. It's just you that can't add to this discussion, or most discussions.

 

Now run along and get to work on that pun. Or is it a hashtag?

Why do airlines have different classes of service for different prices on the same airplane, but then give free upgrades to certain customers? Why do bartenders give you a round on the house if you're there for more than a few hrs/

 

Moron.

Answer my question: is there a bandwidth throttle for GG?

 

Or, since you're so inured with tiers, is there a throttle for them?

Edited January 31, 2017 by OCinBuffalo

[GG]

Nah. Speak for yourself. It's just you that can't add to this discussion, or most discussions.

 

Now run along and get to work on that pun. Or is it a hashtag?

 

Answer my question: is there a bandwidth throttle for GG?

 

Or, since you're so inured with tiers, is there a throttle for them?

It depends on the service tier you idiot. If I exceed the limits set by the ISP, then they will throttle me or try to charge more, as per terms of the service agreement you moron.

 

Usage based pricing is the direct effect of net neutrality you moron. Prior to that wonderful idea, wireline bandwidth was unlimited. So the main reason there are now tiers and caps is because ISPs thought they could bargain with Obama and retain control of usage pricing.

 

Now tell us again how Google and Netflix eat up all the bandwidth and there's nothing left for the little people.

[Greg F]

Be more specific. How and why do they tier their service? Do you think they've got a throttle just for you? Answer that question.

 

How - With cable modems the provider uploads a configuration file that contains the speed limits.

 

Why - Any network has limits. The switches and router have buffers that store and forward packets as they come in. If the number of packets exceeds the buffer size subsequent packets are dropped. TCP packets end up having to be re-transmitted, UDP packets (typically voice and video) are simply lost.

 

Every modem has speed limits that are set by the configuration file when the modem is registered.

[OCinBuffalo]

 

Time Warner (now Spectrum) sets your max speed based on what tier you are paying for. I have run speed tests on hundreds of Time Warner connections for customers and the results are always consistent with the tier they are paying for. It you are suppose to get 5 up you might get 5.2 on a good day. The speeds tend to run a little higher then the quoted tier speeds.

GG: You know I'm only asking because, in your infinite wisdom, you missed this, sitting right on this very page.

 

but yeah, I'm the moron.

 

How - With cable modems the provider uploads a configuration file that contains the speed limits.

 

Why - Any network has limits. The switches and router have buffers that store and forward packets as they come in. If the number of packets exceeds the buffer size subsequent packets are dropped. TCP packets end up having to be re-transmitted, UDP packets (typically voice and video) are simply lost.

 

Every modem has speed limits that are set by the configuration file when the modem is registered.

I wasn't asking you. I was asking him. He didn't even bother to pay attention to what you wrote above.

 

But, I'm the know it all.

 

GG personified. IF there ever was a clinical projectionist in this world, it is GG.

So, GregF, what's your theory on why "speeds tend to run a little higher then[sic] the quoted tier speeds"?

 

EDIT: And when you say any network has limits, surely you don't mean that bandwidth is limited, right? That would contradict the great and powerful GG's post right here.

Edited January 31, 2017 by OCinBuffalo

[Greg F]

So, GregF, what's your theory on why "speeds tend to run a little higher then[sic] the quoted tier speeds"?

 

Everybody hates the cable company. Right? So if they are paying for 25/5 and get slightly higher it is one less thing for people to complain about.

[OCinBuffalo]

 

Everybody hates the cable company. Right? So if they are paying for 25/5 and get slightly higher it is one less thing for people to complain about.

That's the upshot.

 

My question is why do they allow that .2 extra bandwidth to escape their clutches, since, in GG world, everyone is getting exactly what they pay for, nothing less and nothing more?

 

Could there be a technical reason? Hmm. One wonders....

 

Also, is there a chance that 25/5 people see less "extra bandwidth" than those who are paying for lesser plans? Like say, it is pretty common for a 15 plan to see bandwidth of 15. 8 or even 16 sometimes?

Edited January 31, 2017 by OCinBuffalo

[GG]

GG: You know I'm only asking because, in your infinite wisdom, you missed this, sitting right on this very page.

 

but yeah, I'm the moron.

 

I wasn't asking you. I was asking him. He didn't even bother to pay attention to what you wrote above.

 

But, I'm the know it all.

 

GG personified. IF there ever was a clinical projectionist in this world, it is GG.

 

So, GregF, what's your theory on why "speeds tend to run a little higher then[sic] the quoted tier speeds"?

 

EDIT: And when you say any network has limits, surely you don't mean that bandwidth is limited, right? That would contradict the great and powerful GG's post right here.

You're contradicting moron. You're claiming that bandwidth is limited because Google and Netflix gobbled up available capacity and that's why service is capped. I'm saying that you're an idiot

 

Bandwidth is capped by the ISPs because of the business decision they made to introduce pricing tiers into their service, because they're limited in what they really want to charge the real bandwidth hogs on the transport side of the network. Bandwidth is only limited by the price they charge the end users. If somebody wants to pay more, bandwidth is immediately available.

[Greg F]

That's the upshot.

 

My question is why do they allow that .2 extra bandwidth to escape their clutches, since, in GG world, everyone is getting exactly what they pay for, nothing less and nothing more?

 

Could there be a technical reason? Hmm. One wonders....

 

More like political reason. The extra bandwidth is cheap, a subpoena from the state Attorney General not so much.

[GG]

 

More like political reason. The extra bandwidth is cheap, a subpoena from the state Attorney General not so much.

Give it up. He's on a roll.

 

He's right you're wrong. Even though you understand it.

[OCinBuffalo]

You're contradicting moron. You're claiming that bandwidth is limited because Google and Netflix gobbled up available capacity and that's why service is capped. I'm saying that you're an idiot

 

Bandwidth is capped by the ISPs because of the business decision they made to introduce pricing tiers into their service, because they're limited in what they really want to charge the real bandwidth hogs on the transport side of the network. Bandwidth is only limited by the price they charge the end users. If somebody wants to pay more, bandwidth is immediately available.

You are conflating 2 things I said that have little to do with each other.

 

I said that service is capped because, as GregF said: any network has a limit, not because of Google.

 

Learn. To. Read.

 

Whether Google wants to consume most of the bandwidth has nothing to do with whether it is limited. It is limited, because we only have so much wire in the ground. Every day, we add a little more. That's what I said right here:

 

There is a fixed supply of bandwidth today. While it is true that tomorrow, literally, there will be a small increase in supply, it will take years(a decade?) to be at a place where we have surplus bandwidth.

Again: Learn To Read.

Bandwidth is not immediately available, just because you say it is, or because you pay more. One cannot simply conjure it up out of thin air. This is why I say you don't understand bandwidth at all. You keep acting like it's a commodity, a constant. The truth: It is a point in time thing, and a variable.

Bandwidith is not limited by price. It is limited by supply, at any given point in time. I'll try to help you: Everybody in a Connecticut town can pay $1000/min for bandwidth, but if they are all streaming video at the same time, they are all going to be slow, no matter how much they paid, and no matter how much they B word. And, they can all offer to pay $2000/min to be faster...but they won't be.

Why? Because of technical realities in and around that town, that as I have already said: you don't know.

Now, if Google is pushing data to that same town, and everybody there is using it, thus chewing up all their bandwidth, it doesn't matter if you paid $5 or 1000, you're gonna slow down. Google wants to be able to do that, slow everybody down with poorly optimized, "new, fresh, thingys"!, but not have to pay for it.

That's what this is really about: a license to sell piss poor code(EDIT and in google's case, unnecessary code == ads and spyware) that chews up memory and bandwidth without consequence

and

for the hardware companies: a license to tax google et al without adding any value to their customers.

Now, again, you don't really understand this issue, because you really don't understand the business motivations at work here, because you don't understand the technology at work here.

Edited January 31, 2017 by OCinBuffalo

[OCinBuffalo]

 

More like political reason. The extra bandwidth is cheap, a subpoena from the state Attorney General not so much.

Yep.

 

Now we are getting somewhere. So much for price being the sole driver of what bandwidth actually gets delivered, and when, in the real world. I wonder. Could it be that overages in the lower bandwidth ranges, or giving people more than they paid for, is...because it's cheaper to clear those requests off of a server than to hold them up?

 

Why would the cable company want to intentionally slow down a request, when it could clear it, and risk having that slowed-down request still be hanging around...when a new "I paid for my speed, dammit!" request comes in from GG?

 

Nah, they'd rather have packets hanging around in buffers instead of moving them out, and have GG pull his hair out because his Little House on the Prarie video is choppy. Yeah, they want that phone call.

 

This is silly.

 

Sure, at an individual home, testing packets is going to show...whatever the modem is supposed to show. But, when we get out onto the real network, it's absurd to think that everybody's traffic isn't being treated the exact same way: move it asap. The concern with net neutrality is the effect on the real network, or "transport network" as GG likes to say.

[Greg F]

Google wants to be able to do that, slow everybody down with poorly optimized, but "new, fresh, thingys"!, but not have to pay for it.

 

One problem. Google is not a tier 1 (Internet backbone) provider. This means that Google in fact has to pay a other providers to reach other networks. I did a traceroute to Google from TW. It goes through XO communications which is tier 1 provider. So in fact Google has to pay XO communications to get to me. Other tier 1 providers are Verizon Business, Sprint, AT&T, Tata Communications, Century Link and TeliaSonera (this is not an inclusive list).

[OCinBuffalo]

 

One problem. Google is not a tier 1 (Internet backbone) provider. This means that Google in fact has to pay a other providers to reach other networks. I did a traceroute to Google from TW. It goes through XO communications which is tier 1 provider. So in fact Google has to pay XO communications to get to me. Other tier 1 providers are Verizon Business, Sprint, AT&T, Tata Communications, Century Link and TeliaSonera (this is not an inclusive list).

If the request comes from you and you get a response from a google site, that is full of garbage javascript, that takes your browser longer to process. It also means(warning: technical knowhow alert!) that even when it looks like your browser is doing nothing, service requests are being sent. That means the connection has to stay open, for longer until the response is completed, or, always. XO communications gets extra packets they have to ship, for no good reason. That costs them big $ when we talk about all google responses, and that cost has to go somewhere. Wanna bet it goes to Time Warner, who then passes it on to us? Of course it does.

 

This is in no way different than what Microsoft used to do: ship bad code, and fix it later, if at all. The only real difference now is: when one person used Microsoft, it was just their PC that got screwed. When google ships bad code, the entire internet gets screwed. What's worse, google, just like Obamacare, can run and connect to as many useless(EDIT: to us, lucrative to them) web services as they want, most of which we didn't ask for, and don't want, and there's nothing we can do about it: those requests are now coming from YOUR browser, not google, so your ISP is now handling them. Tier don't matter much now, does it?

 

What recourse do we have? Can we charge Google more because their schit code chews up bandwidth? Can we force them to optimize their code, and stop adding in unwanted service requests/client-side callback requests, or face paying huge prices for bandwidth? No. Not with our hero, net neutrality! Net Neutrality to the Rescue! People that don't even use Google still get screwed...because bandwidth...is bandwidth.

 

The biggest problem with net neutrality is: nobody is even talking about this, mostly because nobody knows enough to be talking about this.

 

It's a giant unintended consequence just waiting to happen. And I am unfairly picking on Google here. What's to stop Facebook, or Amazon, or me, from chewing up bandwidth for no good reason?

 

But, you know, those of us who actually know about this shouldn't talk about it, because us knowing things hurts the egos of people like GG. EDIT: I have been waiting for the "you chew up bandwidth for no good reason every day" joke...I left it out there...

Edited January 31, 2017 by OCinBuffalo

[Greg F]

Could it be that overages in the lower bandwidth ranges, or giving people more than they paid for, is...because it's cheaper to clear those requests off of a server than to hold them up?

There is no server. Perhaps you should learn a bit about networking before you ramble on about something you obviously know nothing about.

 

Why would the cable company want to intentionally slow down a request, when it could clear it, and risk having that slowed-down request still be hanging around...when a new "I paid for my speed, dammit!" request comes in from GG?

They don't "slow down a request". All the packets travel at the same speed. What they do is limit the number of request you can make over a given time period. The person with the higher speed can send more packets over the same given time period.

 

Nah, they'd rather have packets hanging around in buffers instead of moving them out, and have GG pull his hair out because his Little House on the Prarie video is choppy. Yeah, they want that phone call.

All packets go through the buffers. Generally first in first out unless QoS is involved. It is called stored and forwarded. It is stored so the switch can figure out where it is suppose to be sent. There are some basic networking resources on the Internet. You should check them out.

 

This is silly.

What is silly is you have not the first clue how networking works yet you persist in making a fool of yourself.

 

Sure, at an individual home, testing packets is going to show...whatever the modem is supposed to show.

Again, your ignorant. A modem is not a tool to look at network traffic.

 

But, when we get out onto the real network...

Let us know when you have a fundamental understanding of how networks work.