FCC Scuttles 2015 Net Neutrality Rules - Page 8 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 358Likes
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #211 of 277 Old 12-17-2017, 02:38 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Brian Conrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Martinez, CA, USA
Posts: 7,999
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2278 Post(s)
Liked: 1746
I think some of you need to look up how little it costs to stream a gigabyte of data. Literally pennies (yeah way under 10 cents). Not only that but how much savings the new video codecs provide in data usage.

I also don't think that the corporate CEOs know better than us. Randall Stephenson has had a run of bad luck as head of AT&T. First people rejected U-Verse IPTV in favor of cord cutting. Then DirecTV. And now the Time-Warner merger may be blocked. He has just resigned from the board of Boeing to devote more time apparently to fight us cable cutters. Another crazy executive.
Ryan1 and Keenan like this.
Brian Conrad is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #212 of 277 Old 12-17-2017, 03:12 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 33,830
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3751 Post(s)
Liked: 3443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post
I think some of you need to look up how little it costs to stream a gigabyte of data. Literally pennies (yeah way under 10 cents). Not only that but how much savings the new video codecs provide in data usage.

I also don't think that the corporate CEOs know better than us. Randall Stephenson has had a run of bad luck as head of AT&T. First people rejected U-Verse IPTV in favor of cord cutting. Then DirecTV. And now the Time-Warner merger may be blocked. He has just resigned from the board of Boeing to devote more time apparently to fight us cable cutters. Another crazy executive.
Less than a nickel, more like a few pennies, the cost of bandwidth today is crazy cheap. Any ISP exec(or FCC commissioner) that starts blathering about the cost of bandwidth is just trying to blow smoke up your backside, it's nonsense. Just like "network congestion" is nonsense. This isn't 1980, it's just more BS talking points to feed to a less than knowledgeable public and legislatures.
Ryan1, DoubleDAZ and Mike Strobel like this.
Keenan is offline  
post #213 of 277 Old 12-17-2017, 03:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 2,035
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 979 Post(s)
Liked: 614
How do you come up with these figures for how cheap the bandwidth for streaming a gigabyte of a data is? Are you including the costs of the infrastructure that was built over the years, some of which may have been financed by loans? Sometimes it takes a company years to recoup outlays.
veedon is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #214 of 277 Old 12-17-2017, 03:30 PM
Senior Member
 
DDailey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan1 View Post
While unfettered "free market" sounds great at first glance, it's a bit more complicated. There is a reason why every advanced country has a robust regulatory framework for public utilities. Most are pretty successful in balancing different interests (and many have better and cheaper internet access than the US).

Killing net-neutrality is something usually done in places like Russia, where monopolists run both business and the government.

The pre-regulation history of Con Edison is rather typical:

“With six major gas companies serving New York City, the streets were constantly being torn up by one company or another installing or repairing their own mains – or removing those of a rival,” explains the Con Edison website.


From time to time, work crews from competing companies would inadvertently meet on the same street and literally battle for customers, giving rise to the term “gas house gangs.”

In May 1880, the city’s major gas companies reached an agreement on the price of gas and ended the construction of competitive mains,” the website adds. “It was a business arrangement that would be unlawful today but was legal, and sensible, at the time.”"


https://aoghs.org/stocks/con-edison-...ility-company/
Welcome to Amerika!
DDailey is offline  
post #215 of 277 Old 12-17-2017, 06:33 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 3
CEOs

Brian here mentioned that CEOs know no more then we do, true, but they do understand how their bread is buttered. We can name scores of CEOs from tech companies, (Digital Equipment, HP, etc) who have been forced out due to losing money and yet they seem to make out millions richer anyhow. If the big companies can afford golden parachutes for people who don't know what they are doing, do they really need to ruin NN just to make even more cash? ( Now, is that "political"? Gee, really hard to know around here.) The recent FCC appointee obviously came into the game biased against NN. What happened to the time in this country when the heads of our regulatory agencies just looked at the facts and did what was best for the American people as a whole?
Brian Conrad likes this.
Billy007 is offline  
post #216 of 277 Old 12-18-2017, 06:06 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanAbby View Post
You folks really don't understand whats happening. Your ISP has no interest in slowing down or censoring the internet.
You're right that ISPs have no motive to censor the Internet, and it's unfortunate for Net Neutrality proponents that some people feel the need to perpetuate hyperbolic doomsday theories.

ISPs do, however, have a motive to ensure certain services perform worse, either by refusing to address congestion issues or by imposing arbitrary data caps that affect competing services but not their own. Most large ISPs are also TV providers, with some even owning content studios (Comcast owning NBC, AT&T wanting to buy TW, etc.). They can, and have, allowed their subscribers' access to select swaths of the Internet to degrade in hopes of either driving customers to their own competing services, or offsetting their lost revenues by extorting transit fees out of content providers like Netflix. I experienced this personally. I am eternally grateful to Tom Wheeler's FCC for stepping in and at least trying to put a stop to it (even if ISPs continued to find new ways around the regulations).

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanAbby View Post
The government wants total control of the internet and they con you by making ISP's the bogyman
Please. The federal government has pretty much no credibility with me at this point, so no, I am not being 'conned'. My concerns here are 100% based on personal experience. Based on that experience, I happen to believe rather strongly that the Title II classification was a step in the right direction, though I don't think it was actually strong enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanAbby View Post
FCC calls it net neutrality to sucker you in. Then like radio and television which they control they can decide wants appropriate content, meaning you will have government control of what you have access to the internet!
This issue has nothing to do with what content is allowed on the Internet. It has to do with requiring ISPs to provide you with the level and quality of service you are paying for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanAbby View Post
When I first got on the internet in 1991 there were no government regulations, internet was truly free bit by bit they are stealing from you and you want them to, sad.
I defy you to cite even a single example of how the FCC has 'stolen' anything from you. I can cite counterexamples where poor service to parts of the Internet disappeared almost overnight when the Title II reclassification was passed. I'm sure that had nothing to do with the robust mechanisms put in place for reporting ISPs who were failing to deliver on their promises.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanAbby View Post
Game of Thrones fans watch out, you watch it over the internet FCC wants to censor it. Walking Dead fans lookout the show is on the internet it's way to violent, FCC with net neutrality they will make it more PG laugh now
Actually, net neutrality does the exact opposite. It was aimed at making sure ISPs provided you with access to all parts of the Internet at the level of service you are paying for. Want to watch Game of Thrones on the Internet? Net Neutrality prevents ISPs from purposefully letting their connection to HBO's content degrade in an effort to push subscribers toward getting HBO through their own cable TV offerings instead. Want to read and contribute more government conspiracy theories? Great. You pay for bandwidth, and you should be able to decide what content you want to access with that bandwidth--not your ISP, not the government.
thehun and JMGNYC like this.

Mike Strobel – Weehawken, NJ
Programmer, Overly Harsh UX Critic, and General Curmudgeon
XBR-65A1E, PS4 Pro, Apple TV 4K
Mike Strobel is offline  
post #217 of 277 Old 12-18-2017, 06:29 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azlen View Post
One of the problems right now is that everything is speculation as to what happens if Net Neutrality goes away. We don't know what the ISPs will do but we do know what they will be allowed to do. We also know that corporations are legally obligated to maximize value for their shareholders. If there was a real choice right now with broadband ISPs, this wouldn't really be an issue but most people don't have a choice.
It's partially speculation, but far from total speculation. We can make educated guesses based on ISPs' past and current behavior. We know, for example, that large ISPs like Comcast and Verizon willfully allowed the quality of service to degrade when accessing certain parts of the Internet. We know that, after certain techniques were prohibited, and robust reporting mechanisms were put in place for customers to report ISPs for failing to provide the level of service promised, they started looking for ways around the rules. Now several of the larger ISPs have started rolling out data caps. Instead of allowing bandwidth to Netflix to degrade (for example), they import data caps just large enough to accommodate most families' HD viewing habits, but which will become utterly untenable as content shifts to 4K/UHD and more consumers switch away from cable TV and move entirely to streaming. This was clever, and it gives them some deniability: "hey, that data cap was more than sufficient for a couple years, so clearly this is Netflix's fault and not ours." Data caps are an abuse of their market position, and there is no reason for them other than to steer customers to their 'preferred' content providers, i.e., the ones they own. And there's no reason to believe they will stop unless they are forced to stop.

While we may not know their methods, we *do* know, to a reasonable degree of certainty, what they want to accomplish. Fortunately, despite what Ajit Pai's FCC says, it's precisely because ISPs *are* common carriers (dumb pipes) that they are limited in what they can do: they can limit bandwidth or limit how much total data you consume, and that's about it. Prevent them from doing either, and we can have a nice Internet.
thehun likes this.

Mike Strobel – Weehawken, NJ
Programmer, Overly Harsh UX Critic, and General Curmudgeon
XBR-65A1E, PS4 Pro, Apple TV 4K
Mike Strobel is offline  
post #218 of 277 Old 12-18-2017, 07:11 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazar View Post
There is plenty of blame to go around
I'll grant you that the blame is perhaps not 100% on Verizon, but it's damn near.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blazar View Post
... much of the crisis is being fomented by the big ISP's not paying much if anything into the bandwidth cost
I'm not sure who the "big ISPs" are in this case. Are you referring to the Tier 1 ISPs (backbones) or Tier 2/3 consumer and business ISPs (last mile)? Regardless, all bandwidth is paid for. On one side of the Tier 1 ISPs, someone pays to send. On the other side, someone pays to receive. There is no cost in between.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blazar View Post
It does not surprise me that Verizon had to resort to shenanigans. Considering that any increase in price that they have to charge the end consumer for the extra bandwidth ends up not affecting the realized profits for the dot coms while only being a passthrough cost from the ISP to the consumer. The options for making a buck for ISP's are limited to raising prices on consumers while Netflix can keep its low rate while not having to pay much for bandwidth.
Verizon did not 'have' to do anything. Their bandwidth *is* being paid for; it's paid by their customers. It's up to the customer how they want to use it, and it's up to Verizon to provide it. That is literally what you are paying them for; it is their reason for existing. From time to time, as more customers shift away from some services and migrate to others, ISPs may need to open up new connections and shut down old ones. That's a core part of their job. In the Verizon case I cited, their actions were all the more egregious precisely because they were a Tier 1 provider and therefore peered for free with Level 3 (Netflix's CDN at the time). That "extra bandwidth" cost them nothing; the only costs would have been a few 10Gbit network cards, which Level 3 even offered to buy and install for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blazar View Post
It's no wonder that most of my stock is in Facebook and not in Verizon. Compare the 5 year chart of facebook or netflix and the 5 year chart of verizon and we start to see where the breakdown is happening. Follow the money.
I do not see any 'breakdown' happening. Verizon and their ilk provide a simple, fixed service. The only change anyone expects from them is that their capacity grows to support their customers' demand. Considering bandwidth costs decrease over time, that is not a problem, and it never has been. ISPs are actually loathe to invest in their own infrastructure and only do so sparingly. The 'problem' is that ISPs' shareholders expect increased growth year over year, and since most of the country already has broadband Internet, their growth rate is inherently limited. Thus, any and all 'innovation' from ISPs is centered around figuring out how to charge their customers for capabilities they already had. Internet access may have been a growth business in the '90s and early 2000s, but in the long term it's not. If they can't accept that painfully obvious truth, then they get very little sympathy from me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blazar View Post
I am still waiting for these mega-content-providers to be supporting this countries' infrastructure. Perhaps these companies would have to pay in tiers. The more bandwidth they use, the more the rate goes up in order to handle bandwidth costs. Pure net neutrality for these companies will only cement their monopoly status.
That is, in fact, exactly how it works now, and how it has always worked. Content providers and content consumers both pay in terms of bandwidth. Netflix was paying Level 3, and Level 3 determined what they were paid. Verizon's customers pay Verizon for the bandwidth on their end. The link in between is, again, a free peering arrangement between Level 3 and Verizon. It costs Verizon nothing. The only 'cost' is in lost subscribers abandoning them in droves because they finally have an alternative to paying $150/month for the privilege of having ads crammed down their throats, and that is what they are scrambling to stop--not by actually improving their service, but by abusing their position as gatekeepers to harm their competitors. Sorry, Verizon, but when you abuse and rip off your customers for years on end, you eventually lose them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blazar View Post
IF the ISP's must be treated as a public utility then GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, AND NETFLIX must also be treated as such. I can't live without google and my business can't thrive without advertising on facebook.
Why? Content providers pay handsomely for the resources they consume. They pay for power, they pay for bandwidth, and they pay for the real estate needed to build their data centers. Unlike ISPs, most of them did not receive billions of dollars in taxpayer money, either. They also drive far more innovation than consumer and business ISPs do. Most of those ISPs invent *nothing*. All three entities you mentioned (Facebook, Google, and Netflix) have developed compelling new hardware and software technologies to support their growing needs, and what have they done with it? They've given it back in the form of open source software that anyone can use for free. Many of those software packages have become extremely popular and serve as the technical foundation for new start-ups. Even in the case of hardware innovations, which are not so easily shared, these companies routinely share their findings and breakthroughs via detailed posts on their engineering blogs. These big tech companies, which you seem to think should be regulated as utilities, contribute far more to the economy and the world's technical infrastructure than Comcast ever will.

EDIT: Typos, clarity.
andygiddings likes this.

Mike Strobel – Weehawken, NJ
Programmer, Overly Harsh UX Critic, and General Curmudgeon
XBR-65A1E, PS4 Pro, Apple TV 4K

Last edited by Mike Strobel; 12-18-2017 at 07:25 AM.
Mike Strobel is offline  
post #219 of 277 Old 12-18-2017, 11:14 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DoubleDAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Peoria, AZ (75 Ave & T-Bird)
Posts: 10,417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked: 532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keenan View Post
Less than a nickel, more like a few pennies, the cost of bandwidth today is crazy cheap. Any ISP exec(or FCC commissioner) that starts blathering about the cost of bandwidth is just trying to blow smoke up your backside, it's nonsense. Just like "network congestion" is nonsense. This isn't 1980, it's just more BS talking points to feed to a less than knowledgeable public and legislatures.
When I look at the internet, I liken it to a highway where each vehicle is a packet of data. Now I know that unlike highways, the speed on the internet is crazy fast. However, isn't there still finite space for the "vehicles" to move? And aren't there bottlenecks just like the highway interchanges where movement slows down? And like highways, doesn't new or improved equipment have to be added so the data flows more smoothly and faster as more data enters the system? Are you saying that the cost to add that equipment is really that cheap so as not to be a big deal? And if that's true, why are some sites so slow while others are blazing fast? I look at the modems I've purchased over the years and while not super expensive, they aren't really that cheap for those who don't have the money to spare. And when I look at how much one could spend over time to keep up with ever-changing technology, it does kind of boggle the mind. Like you, I don't believe ISP execs or FCC commissioners, but I really don't know the real numbers, so it's hard to refute what people say.

Cheers, Dave
DoubleDAZ is offline  
post #220 of 277 Old 12-18-2017, 11:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Brian Conrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Martinez, CA, USA
Posts: 7,999
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2278 Post(s)
Liked: 1746
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
How do you come up with these figures for how cheap the bandwidth for streaming a gigabyte of a data is? Are you including the costs of the infrastructure that was built over the years, some of which may have been financed by loans? Sometimes it takes a company years to recoup outlays.
Often from articles on:
http://www.streamingmedia.com/
That's the journal for those in the streaming industry and there often videos of talks by those involved at our favorite streaming services. The figure was probably from one of those articles. Warning: they do post some tech articles that are very deep (which I love reading).

Some information may be gleamed from the tech blogs like those of Netflix and Hulu which has just restarted their tech blog after being dormant for awhile.

As far as "censoring" that was coming from a confused sector who didn't like YouTube videos getting deleted or their stuff demonetized. And that actually has nothing to do with Net Neutrality but corporate policies. I suspect even the folks running AVS Forum have to turn down some ads occasionally. But somehow that sector comported it wrongly with NN.
Ryan1 likes this.
Brian Conrad is offline  
post #221 of 277 Old 12-18-2017, 12:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 7,682
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2270 Post(s)
Liked: 897
There's a reason why companies like Comcast and Verizon are widely disliked by consumers. Most of that comes from poor customer service experiences but you figure the same attitudes from the customer service people come down from the top, from executives who would degrade some services to monetize things like paid-prioritization.

About a year ago, I did some short trial memberships with Hulu and Direct TV Now. During those couple of months, my data usage, according to Comcast, approached my monthly cap of 1 TB. There is no transparency about how they track data usage.

Well now, the only streaming I'm doing is with the Xfinity Stream TV app., a bit of HBO Go and Showtime Anytime and sometimes my Slingbox. Now my monthly data usage is no more than 300 GB and often under 200 GB.

So I think there are some shenanigans going on whenever I use a competitor's TV streaming service.
wco81 is offline  
post #222 of 277 Old 12-18-2017, 01:00 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post
When I look at the internet, I liken it to a highway where each vehicle is a packet of data.
A reasonable analogy so far. There are significant differences, but it's a start.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post
However, isn't there still finite space for the "vehicles" to move?
Yes. The number of cars that can flow through a segment of road essentially describes 'bandwidth'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post
And aren't there bottlenecks just like the highway interchanges where movement slows down? And like highways, doesn't new or improved equipment have to be added so the data flows more smoothly and faster as more data enters the system? Are you saying that the cost to add that equipment is really that cheap so as not to be a big deal?
It's almost miraculously cheap, but it's also relative. Let's say we have a situation like the 2014 congestion issue between Level 3 and Verizon. There's plenty of unused capacity between the largest ISPs, so it's usually just a matter of opening up some additional ports. Maybe buying a few enterprise-class 10Gbit adapters. Back in 2014, those probably cost a few thousand dollars apiece. Obviously, that would be a lot of money for you or me. But each of those cards would have supported around 5,000 Netflix streams. Even if each card cost $5,000, that's what? A one-off cost of $1 per customer served? Each of those customers is paying somewhere around $50-150 per month for bandwidth (depending on their plan), and ~90% of that is pure profit. From time to time, some of that may need to go toward whatever upgrades are needed to ensure that bandwidth is available for the content the customer wants to access. That's part of their job as ISPs. But to answer your question, yes, in the grand scheme of things, bandwidth and equipment are cheap.

Also, when traffic patterns change, you can't simply shave a few lanes off an underutilized highway somewhere and plop them down on a different highway somewhere else, overnight. But, using your analogy, ISPs can do exactly that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post
And if that's true, why are some sites so slow while others are blazing fast?
Oh boy, that's a far more complicated question than you probably realize. The short answer is lots of reasons, but here's a few big ones:

Bandwidth. Smaller sites may only pay for a few hundred megabits of bandwidth, and smaller hosting plans like this often limit the amount of bandwidth available to any single request. Bandwidth is cheap when you buy lots of it. If you need a lot of bandwidth, you can buy it from a Tier 1 provider, but it you don't, then you end up buying from a middle-man, who may very well be buying from yet another middle-man, each one expecting to turn a tidy profit.

Physical distance. Big sites have data centers on both coasts to curb this effect, but smaller sites often don't. Let's say you're on the east coast, and you request a site on the west coast. Transit time might be 25ms each way, or 50ms round-trip, and that's just to transmit a single packet. Websites these days are incredibly bloated (more on this in a moment), and accessing a typical website involves making dozens of individual requests for images, scripts, fonts, media, etc. If loading a website involves 50 requests at 50ms round-trip latency, you're looking at 2.5 seconds minimum, and that's assuming everything else happens instantly (which it certainly won't, especially for sites with less traffic).

Caching. Caching frequently requested resources can greatly reduce up a site's load time. But it only helps when the data you want is actually in the cache. The data you see on Facebook is almost always 'hot', so it's quick to load. But if you have to go out and run a database query against a disk, that can add a serious hit. In extreme cases, you may unwittingly fetch something so isolated that you end up waiting for a sleeping hard drive to physically spool up, which may take several seconds. This sort of thing usually only happens on infrequently visited sites.

Bloat. Websites today are incredibly bloated. I think the New York Times home page pulls down something like 15 MB (that's megabytes) of scripts and other garbage. Developers see a nifty function in a third-party library, so they import the entire library, which then imports all the libraries that one depends on, and so on. It's a friggin' disaster. The amount of media injected into websites is also much higher than it used to be: large images, video streams, you name it.

Poor design. This might be the worst offender. By "poor design", I don't mean the website looks bad; I mean it's not designed for efficiency. Some of this falls under 'bloat', but it's more complicated than that. I've seen so many sites that won't display properly until they've finished waiting on all the third-party ads, trackers, and other nonsense to load. Ever see a site that seems to hang while loading, and the browser status bar says something like "waiting for really-slow-ad-network.com"? That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Then, when the script finally does load, it ends up shuffling the page's content around to inject ads, which slows things down even further. And then there's the dumb newbie mistakes like fetching a 2,000px wide image just to display a 200px thumbnail.

There's plenty of other things that factor in, like DNS requests, which may or may not add a noticeable overhead depending on how obscure a site you're visiting. But the gist is this: a website's load time usually says a lot more about its developers and its host than it does about the pipes that connect you to it.
Brian Conrad, DoubleDAZ and Keenan like this.

Mike Strobel – Weehawken, NJ
Programmer, Overly Harsh UX Critic, and General Curmudgeon
XBR-65A1E, PS4 Pro, Apple TV 4K

Last edited by Mike Strobel; 12-18-2017 at 01:08 PM.
Mike Strobel is offline  
post #223 of 277 Old 12-18-2017, 01:14 PM
Super Moderator
 
markrubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 21,093
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1771 Post(s)
Liked: 3539
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post

So I think there are some shenanigans going on whenever I use a competitor's TV streaming service.
agreed: Xfinity wants you to stream a movie from them, rather than stream the same movie from a competitor on their (Xfinity) service....it makes sense, no?

please take the high road in every post:do not respond to or quote a problematic post: report it
HDMI.org:what a mess HDCP = Hollywood's Draconian Copy Protection system
LG C9 OLED owner


markrubin is offline  
post #224 of 277 Old 12-18-2017, 01:42 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DoubleDAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Peoria, AZ (75 Ave & T-Bird)
Posts: 10,417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked: 532
Mike Strobel, thanks for a very respectful answer. I think some of my attitude to all this is that I deal with Cox Communications here in Phoenix and they don't own any competing content like Comcast, etc. They have On Demand, but I haven't seen any problems with streaming the same movie from Netflix or Amazon, even 4K. My data usage seems in line with what data I use, so the only real complaint I have is cost, just like everyone else. I guess when you don't share the experiences of others it's hard to understand their angst.

Cheers, Dave
DoubleDAZ is offline  
post #225 of 277 Old 12-18-2017, 06:29 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 7,682
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2270 Post(s)
Liked: 897
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrubin View Post
agreed: Xfinity wants you to stream a movie from them, rather than stream the same movie from a competitor on their (Xfinity) service....it makes sense, no?
Maybe there's a way to spoof them, like through a VPN or something, so that they don't double or triple count the bytes from other streaming services.
markrubin likes this.
wco81 is offline  
post #226 of 277 Old 12-18-2017, 07:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
blazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 4,322
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1188 Post(s)
Liked: 876
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Strobel View Post
I'll grant you that the blame is perhaps not 100% on Verizon, but it's damn near.


I'm not sure who the "big ISPs" are in this case. Are you referring to the Tier 1 ISPs (backbones) or Tier 2/3 consumer and business ISPs (last mile)? Regardless, all bandwidth is paid for. On one side of the Tier 1 ISPs, someone pays to send. On the other side, someone pays to receive. There is no cost in between.



Verizon did not 'have' to do anything. Their bandwidth *is* being paid for; it's paid by their customers. It's up to the customer how they want to use it, and it's up to Verizon to provide it. That is literally what you are paying them for; it is their reason for existing. From time to time, as more customers shift away from some services and migrate to others, ISPs may need to open up new connections and shut down old ones. That's a core part of their job. In the Verizon case I cited, their actions were all the more egregious precisely because they were a Tier 1 provider and therefore peered for free with Level 3 (Netflix's CDN at the time). That "extra bandwidth" cost them nothing; the only costs would have been a few 10Gbit network cards, which Level 3 even offered to buy and install for them.


I do not see any 'breakdown' happening. Verizon and their ilk provide a simple, fixed service. The only change anyone expects from them is that their capacity grows to support their customers' demand. Considering bandwidth costs decrease over time, that is not a problem, and it never has been. ISPs are actually loathe to invest in their own infrastructure and only do so sparingly. The 'problem' is that ISPs' shareholders expect increased growth year over year, and since most of the country already has broadband Internet, their growth rate is inherently limited. Thus, any and all 'innovation' from ISPs is centered around figuring out how to charge their customers for capabilities they already had. Internet access may have been a growth business in the '90s and early 2000s, but in the long term it's not. If they can't accept that painfully obvious truth, then they get very little sympathy from me.


That is, in fact, exactly how it works now, and how it has always worked. Content providers and content consumers both pay in terms of bandwidth. Netflix was paying Level 3, and Level 3 determined what they were paid. Verizon's customers pay Verizon for the bandwidth on their end. The link in between is, again, a free peering arrangement between Level 3 and Verizon. It costs Verizon nothing. The only 'cost' is in lost subscribers abandoning them in droves because they finally have an alternative to paying $150/month for the privilege of having ads crammed down their throats, and that is what they are scrambling to stop--not by actually improving their service, but by abusing their position as gatekeepers to harm their competitors. Sorry, Verizon, but when you abuse and rip off your customers for years on end, you eventually lose them.


Why? Content providers pay handsomely for the resources they consume. They pay for power, they pay for bandwidth, and they pay for the real estate needed to build their data centers. Unlike ISPs, most of them did not receive billions of dollars in taxpayer money, either. They also drive far more innovation than consumer and business ISPs do. Most of those ISPs invent *nothing*. All three entities you mentioned (Facebook, Google, and Netflix) have developed compelling new hardware and software technologies to support their growing needs, and what have they done with it? They've given it back in the form of open source software that anyone can use for free. Many of those software packages have become extremely popular and serve as the technical foundation for new start-ups. Even in the case of hardware innovations, which are not so easily shared, these companies routinely share their findings and breakthroughs via detailed posts on their engineering blogs. These big tech companies, which you seem to think should be regulated as utilities, contribute far more to the economy and the world's technical infrastructure than Comcast ever will.

EDIT: Typos, clarity.

my apologies on the typo, what i meant to say is that major players in *internet content* are not paying for the infrastructure while the ISP's are doing so. the entire focus for me is what companies are making the most money in the "net neutrality" scenario. Full disclosure, I have not sold any facebook stock as a result of the rule changes. None of this is going to affect google or facebook any more than a tiny blip on their radar screen. They will pass on the extra costs from ISP's (if they charge them) onto advertisers who will then pass on their costs to their consumers. The consumers always pay somewhere down the line.

Blazar!
blazar is offline  
post #227 of 277 Old 12-18-2017, 09:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mailiang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springsteen Country
Posts: 8,619
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1185 Post(s)
Liked: 764
Thumbs up FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn Rips Net Neutrality Ruling

See video:https://www.avsforum.com/forum/184-vi...l#post55344236

Ian

The best way to succeed in life is to act on the advice you give to others

mailiang is offline  
post #228 of 277 Old 12-18-2017, 11:57 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Worf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,108
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 780 Post(s)
Liked: 500
For a time, netflix was broken on Verizon. The problem was Verizon's link to level3 was a single 10gpbs line card connection that Verizon's purposely refused to upgrade (at a massive point of presence - basically a building where all the major ISPs interlink). Because they knew that with all netflix traffic going through that one card, everyone was getting sub-480p video. And everyone knew it too, because if you used a vpn, suddenly you can get full high quality 1080p netflix.

And yes, line cards may be expensive, but considering the the providers were next to each other, level3 was even willing to buy the line cards and put them on Verizon's chassis. (This is a big, but not so huge investment, well under $1million that would relieve congestion and make everyone's network better - because there was plenty of room in each chassis for several cards and level3 would max it out).

Verizon refused to discuss it, denied it, and refused to let anyone touch the connection. Because politically it was better to congest the link even though it would make life much easier and better and he'll, someone else was paying for the equipment.
Ryan1 likes this.

Last edited by DrDon; 12-19-2017 at 06:26 AM. Reason: Political comments removed
Worf is offline  
post #229 of 277 Old 12-19-2017, 12:27 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
thehun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Leftardia Kommiefornia
Posts: 9,622
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1074 Post(s)
Liked: 1075
Quote:
Originally Posted by grittree View Post
I don't know if "net neutrality" is good or bad.

The internet was essentially unregulated until 2015. Seemed to work pretty good before that. And, so far, after.

Modern electronics was essentially always unregulated. Bell Labs gave us transistors. Other private firms gave us integrated circuits. The only US Govt contribution I know of is that they were the last people using vacuum tubes.

Do we want people who can't be fired for incompetence in charge?
You completely missing the point. The "internet" was not at any point regulated by the FCC, what was regulated is how it was delivered to you by the ISPs, meaning their shenanigans were no longer acceptable. There are plenty posts here that explains what those shenanigans were, hence why the NN was necessary.
Mike Strobel likes this.

De sagittis Hungarorum libera nos, Domine!

Attention, don't read my posts if you're a snowflake or easily offended.

The Hun
thehun is offline  
post #230 of 277 Old 12-19-2017, 01:10 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ryan1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,206
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 252
$400 BILLION BROADBAND SCANDAL

"By the end of 2014, America will have been charged about $400 billion by the local phone incumbents, Verizon, AT&T and CenturyLink, for a fiber optic future that never showed up. And though it varies by state, counting the taxes, fees and surcharges that you have paid every month (many of these fees are actually revenues to the company or taxes on the company that you paid), it comes to about $4000-$5000.00 per household from 1992-2014, and that’s the low number.

You were also charged about nine times to wire the schools and libraries via state and federal plans designed to help the phone and cable companies.

And if that doesn’t bother you, by year-end of 2010, and based on the commitments made by the phone companies in their press statements, filings on the state and federal level, and the state-based ‘alternative regulation’ plans that were put in place to charge you for broadband upgrades of the telephone company wire in your home, business, as well as the schools and libraries — America, should have been the world’s first fully fibered, leading edge broadband nation.

In fact, in 1992, the speed of broadband, as detailed in state laws, was 45 Mbps in both directions — by 2014, all of us should have been enjoying gigabit speeds (1000 Mbps)."


The ISPs have been very effective in exchanging false promises for generous taxpayer subsidies.

TENNESSEE COULD GIVE TAXPAYERS AMERICA'S FASTEST INTERNET FOR FREE, BUT IT WILL GIVE COMCAST AND AT&T $45 MILLION INSTEAD

"Chattanooga, Tennessee has the fastest, most affordable internet in the United States. Many of the rural areas surrounding it have dial up, satellite, or no internet at all. Chattanooga wants to expand its network so these rural areas can have the same Gbps and 10 Gpbs connections the city has. Rather than allow that to happen, Tennessee's legislature just voted to give Comcast and AT&T a $45 million taxpayer handout."

And yes, the ISPs have been very successful at getting state legislators to effectively ban competition from municipal networks.

And now, Pai.
Ryan1 is offline  
post #231 of 277 Old 12-19-2017, 05:34 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazar View Post
my apologies on the typo, what i meant to say is that major players in *internet content* are not paying for the infrastructure while the ISP's are doing so. the entire focus for me is what companies are making the most money in the "net neutrality" scenario. Full disclosure, I have not sold any facebook stock as a result of the rule changes. None of this is going to affect google or facebook any more than a tiny blip on their radar screen. They will pass on the extra costs from ISP's (if they charge them) onto advertisers who will then pass on their costs to their consumers. The consumers always pay somewhere down the line.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say the content providers aren't paying for infrastructure. Those guys are the CDNs' biggest customers. If they're not paying for the infrastructure, then who do you think is?

Content providers pay their CDNs (their ISPs) to send their content. Business and consumer subscribers pay their ISPs to receive that content. Everybody gets paid. I'm not sure how much more clear I can be. The only freeloaders on the Internet are the guys leeching off free or unsecured WiFi.
Ryan1 likes this.

Mike Strobel – Weehawken, NJ
Programmer, Overly Harsh UX Critic, and General Curmudgeon
XBR-65A1E, PS4 Pro, Apple TV 4K
Mike Strobel is offline  
post #232 of 277 Old 12-19-2017, 05:51 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehun View Post
You completely missing the point. The "internet" was not at any point regulated by the FCC, what was regulated is how it was delivered to you by the ISPs, meaning their shenanigans were no longer acceptable. There are plenty posts here that explains what those shenanigans were, hence why the NN was necessary.
I think most of the policy makers in Washington cannot grasp the difference between regulating "the Internet" (the content) and regulating ISPs (the delivery). The Net Neutrality opponents were far more successful at blurring the line than the proponents were at clearing it up.

Mike Strobel – Weehawken, NJ
Programmer, Overly Harsh UX Critic, and General Curmudgeon
XBR-65A1E, PS4 Pro, Apple TV 4K

Last edited by Mike Strobel; 12-19-2017 at 06:48 AM.
Mike Strobel is offline  
post #233 of 277 Old 12-19-2017, 12:59 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
thehun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Leftardia Kommiefornia
Posts: 9,622
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1074 Post(s)
Liked: 1075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Strobel View Post
I think most of the policy makers in Washington cannot grasp the difference between regulating "the Internet" (the content) and regulating ISPs (the delivery). The Net Neutrality opponents were far more successful at blurring the line than the proponents were at clearing it up.
Yes, and the "sky is falling" is certainly didn't help from the left, which we had seen from the right 2 years ago as well , having said that the vote was predetermined as soon as Pai took reign, nothing we didn't see coming.The general public overwhelmingly supports NN just like it did in 2015, it's really isn't a "wedge issue" like so many are that split the voters at half, however if one watched the coverage on this one would think otherwise.

De sagittis Hungarorum libera nos, Domine!

Attention, don't read my posts if you're a snowflake or easily offended.

The Hun
thehun is offline  
post #234 of 277 Old 12-19-2017, 06:58 PM
Senior Member
 
Jbhur212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Akron
Posts: 363
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 185 Post(s)
Liked: 150
And so it begins...https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/201...et-neutrality/

EQUIPMENT:LG OLED77C8PUA (ISF calibrated by Jeff Meier)-OPPO BDP-203 blu-ray player-OPPO DV-983H dvd player-Pioneer CLD-99 laser disc player-Marantz 7703 Preamplifier-200x3 Acurus amplifier-150x2 Acurus amplifier-Emotiva UPA-2 amplifier-Outlaw Model 5000 amplifier-2 Mythos 4-1 Mythos 8-2 Mythos BPX-2 NHT Super Zeros-4 SVS Prime Elevation speakers-Hsu VTF-2 MK3 subwoofer-Elite-Xbox One S-Roku Ultra streaming player
Jbhur212 is offline  
post #235 of 277 Old 12-19-2017, 07:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
gomo657's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,825
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 752 Post(s)
Liked: 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jbhur212 View Post


The Comcast rates were announced before the ruling.

"well you know what doctor I'm going to go home take two aspirins and call you a b****"
gomo657 is offline  
post #236 of 277 Old 12-19-2017, 07:43 PM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 16,684
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2123 Post(s)
Liked: 4032
Yep. That would have happened, either way.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is online now  
post #237 of 277 Old 12-19-2017, 07:59 PM
Advanced Member
 
danielrg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 535
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post
Just one minor nit: satellite signals are radio waves - much slower than the speed of light. If they went light speed, there would be less lag than traditional wired ISP connections.

In fact, if they could use light-based technologies for satellite internet, bandwith wouldn't be an issue either since they could theoretically create a wireless form of fiber optics.
Radio waves and light are both electromagnetic waves, and both travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. Light just happens to be what we tend to call electromagnetic waves that are close to what our eyes can perceive. Technically light on fiber optics isn't in the human visual range either (particularly with long link types).

EM waves through fiber optic cables are slower by around a third than EM waves in a vacuum (which is also close to the speed through air) - which I forgot about when I did my little analysis (oops). So if anything, I think radio waves are faster than light in fiber optics from a distance-delay perspective.

Bandwidth discussion would be interesting - bandwidth is improved for optical communications due to the high frequency - this allows a higher bandwidth channel than radio waves, increasing the capacity according to Shannon's theorem.

Hardware and System engineer. Enjoy theaters, automation, media and the outdoors.
Love the hobby, but always have to remember to keep family first!
"The Escape Pod" - First Theater Build
danielrg is offline  
post #238 of 277 Old 12-19-2017, 08:20 PM
Senior Member
 
maxreactance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Strobel View Post
Yes. The number of cars that can flow through a segment of road essentially describes 'bandwidth'.

There's plenty of other things that factor in, like DNS requests, which may or may not add a noticeable overhead depending on how obscure a site you're visiting. But the gist is this: a website's load time usually says a lot more about its developers and its host than it does about the pipes that connect you to it.
One clarification: "bandwidth" is incredibly influenced by the "Shannon rate" of the transmission medium.

A lot of people forget that fiber optics can carry many orders of magnitude more data than any copper/metal wire medium. The people that strangely most forgot this were the people who spent $billions upgrading the backbone transmission lines of America/the world to fiber optics, thinking they were going make almost infinite amounts of money based on copper wire bandwidth pricing. Oh well, that's "management" for you...and we the consumers will ultimately get to reap the benefits of this staggering amount of cheap bandwidth, while they try to figure out nefarious ways to recoup their lost profits...and the game goes on and here we are.

The essay on goofed-up websites is completely correct and easily verifiable, even right here on this forum, since what seems like the majority of websites, this one is a hot mess of crashes, idiotic annoying video ads that try to follow you around while you're trying to use the site, "not responding" lockups, etc., etc., etc. That's why I said the Internet was broken a few posts ago, it was broken in 1992, 1995, 1998, 2005, and 2017, because it is largely run by clueless management who sit around and wait to approve rigged demos for release from incompetent programmers and website developers, then can't understand why they can't make money off the Internet (my favorite thing in the last few years is "web metrics" which purport to provide insight as to why your money-losing website is losing money, but are just more bloatware to make you lose even more money).

And the game goes on and here we are...despite the FCC "repealing" net neutrality (which they can't actually do in the first place), almost certainly the Internet will continue to grow, brand new companies based on the Internet will become titans of the economy, who only need to exhibit a shred of common sense and touch of technical expertise to be the next set of $billionaires, sweeping away the incompetent "old guard" who desperately try to get politicians to give them a monopoly and tax breaks because they're not smart enough to survive the "new economy"...

--
max
Brian Conrad likes this.
maxreactance is offline  
post #239 of 277 Old 12-19-2017, 08:32 PM
Senior Member
 
maxreactance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielrg View Post
Radio waves and light are both electromagnetic waves, and both travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. Light just happens to be what we tend to call electromagnetic waves that are close to what our eyes can perceive. Technically light on fiber optics isn't in the human visual range either (particularly with long link types).

EM waves through fiber optic cables are slower by around a third than EM waves in a vacuum (which is also close to the speed through air) - which I forgot about when I did my little analysis (oops). So if anything, I think radio waves are faster than light in fiber optics from a distance-delay perspective.

Bandwidth discussion would be interesting - bandwidth is improved for optical communications due to the high frequency - this allows a higher bandwidth channel than radio waves, increasing the capacity according to Shannon's theorem.
Yes, the "Shannon rate", one of the all-time great pieces of thinking in human history, applicable to economics, gambling, investing, and on and one, in addition to determining the maximum data-carrying capacity of a specific transmission medium.

The effect of EM waves slowing down in solid transmission materials is called the "velocity factor", but isn't necessarily the gating factor in bandwidth (there are several). It can lead to some trickiness in electronic circuitry, and does surprise some people who aren't aware that the "speed of light" is only the speed of light in a vacuum, but depends on the thickness of wire it is traveling through, 1/8 inch diameter wire slows down the speed of light by about 8% and so forth (and the "trickiness" is why some critical super-high-frequency microwave components don't even use wire, but wave-guide tubes to avoid destroying the fragile signal).

--
max
danielrg likes this.
maxreactance is offline  
post #240 of 277 Old 12-19-2017, 08:39 PM
Senior Member
 
maxreactance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jbhur212 View Post
And that has nothing to do with net neutrality. ISPs were always free to raise their rates to whatever levels they wanted/could get away with, or implement data caps, or whatever like that.

Net neutrality just said you had to charge the same rate for all websites. Frankly, an "ISP" who charges higher rates for certain websites (or video streaming services), or will remove data caps for that website/service for a price, or blocks them entirely, is not an "ISP" at all. It is plain and simple consumer fraud.

Look for locals laws to enforce that idea. The FCC is not only wrong on this, but toothless.

--
max
Ryan1 likes this.
maxreactance is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Closed Thread Networking, Media Servers & Content Streaming

Tags
net neutrality

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off