Discussion:
YouTube vs. rest of streaming World
Add Reply
Bozo
2017-07-15 12:51:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Washington Post story :

http://tinyurl.com/y7nfyr9d
Bozo
2017-07-19 18:11:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
And , Trump wants to get rid of net neutrality . He probably has no clue what's involved, just knows, or more likely was told, Obama favored the concept, thus Trump's knee-jerk is to be against the concept :

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/07/trump-team-endorses-fcc-rollback-of-obama-era-net-neutrality-rules/
Bob Harper
2017-07-19 22:28:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bozo
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/07/trump-team-endorses-fcc-rollback-of-obama-era-net-neutrality-rules/
I'm curious. What have been the benefits of the current rules to you, or
conversely, what negative effects did you suffer under the old, rather
lighter, regulatory regime?

My default view, until I am convinced otherwise, is, in the words of a
2012 column in Forbes, that 'net neutrality', as currently defined by
recent FCC regulations, is "a solution in search of a problem."

I am asking this seriously; I've no interest in a slanging match about
the subject.

Bob Harper
Bozo
2017-07-19 22:50:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Harper
My default view, until I am convinced otherwise, is, in the words of a
2012 column in Forbes, that 'net neutrality', as currently defined by
recent FCC regulations, is "a solution in search of a problem."
The World has changed since 2012. Given the importance of the Internet, I would not sleep well at night knowing a Trump nominee- lackey will head FCC given just these unfit Trump's choices to date :

Pruitt,EPA
Price,HHS
DeVoss, Education
Sessions, AG
Perry,Energy
Munchin, Treasury
Bozo
2017-07-20 00:25:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
And today, in NYT interview, DT throws Sessions under the bus, and threatens Mueller !!?

Sorry, I don't want the FCC and the Internet in the hands of DT ( I'm charitably referring to him by his name ) .
Frank Berger
2017-07-20 01:02:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bozo
Post by Bob Harper
My default view, until I am convinced otherwise, is, in the words of a
2012 column in Forbes, that 'net neutrality', as currently defined by
recent FCC regulations, is "a solution in search of a problem."
Pruitt,EPA
Price,HHS
DeVoss, Education
Sessions, AG
Perry,Energy
Munchin, Treasury
Is the Internet more important than the environment,
housing, education, law, energy and the economy? Shouldn't
you already be having trouble sleeping?
Bozo
2017-07-20 01:42:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Frank Berger
Shouldn't
you already be having trouble sleeping?
I am. I had not realized the 2016 election outcome would mean the USA would change from a federal republic to a quasi- dictatorship, with no one on the GOP side raising a finger.Shades of 1930's Germany. Forgot to mention, per the NYT , DT also threw Deputy AG Rosenstein under the bus, and threatened Deputy FBI Director McCabe.
Frank Berger
2017-07-20 01:53:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bozo
Post by Frank Berger
Shouldn't
you already be having trouble sleeping?
I am. I had not realized the 2016 election outcome would mean the USA would change from a federal republic to a quasi- dictatorship, with no one on the GOP side raising a finger.Shades of 1930's Germany. Forgot to mention, per the NYT , DT also threw Deputy AG Rosenstein under the bus, and threatened Deputy FBI Director McCabe.
Sometimes hyperbole is useful; sometimes it's funny;
sometimes it just makes me want to cry.
Bozo
2017-07-21 01:57:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Frank Berger
Sometimes hyperbole is useful; sometimes it's funny;
sometimes it just makes me want to cry.
WAPO and NYT report tonight Trump's legal team is preparing an attack on Mueller's and his team, and Trump has inquired if Trump could pardon himself. Cry for us all.
Bob Harper
2017-07-20 20:09:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bozo
Post by Bob Harper
My default view, until I am convinced otherwise, is, in the words of a
2012 column in Forbes, that 'net neutrality', as currently defined by
recent FCC regulations, is "a solution in search of a problem."
Pruitt,EPA
Price,HHS
DeVoss, Education
Sessions, AG
Perry,Energy
Munchin, Treasury
Your reply does not respond to my question. I know you don't approve of
the Administration or its members--as is your right--but can you to my
question:

I'm curious. What have been the benefits of the current rules to you, or
conversely, what negative effects did you suffer under the old, rather
lighter, regulatory regime?

Thanks.

Bob Harper
Bob Harper
2017-07-20 21:41:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Bozo
Post by Bob Harper
My default view, until I am convinced otherwise, is, in the words of a
2012 column in Forbes, that 'net neutrality', as currently defined by
recent FCC regulations, is "a solution in search of a problem."
The World has changed since 2012. Given the importance of the
Internet, I would not sleep well at night knowing a Trump nominee-
Pruitt,EPA
Price,HHS
DeVoss, Education
Sessions, AG
Perry,Energy
Munchin, Treasury
Your reply does not respond to my question. I know you don't approve of
the Administration or its members--as is your right--but can you to my
I'm curious. What have been the benefits of the current rules to you, or
conversely, what negative effects did you suffer under the old, rather
lighter, regulatory regime?
Thanks.
Bob Harper
'respond to', of course. Stupid fingers :)

Bob Harper
Bozo
2017-07-21 00:03:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Harper
I'm curious. What have been the benefits of the current rules to you
Net neutrality. (I thought obvious.)

As to the future, more than enough reason to worry.
Bob Harper
2017-07-22 15:20:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bozo
Post by Bob Harper
I'm curious. What have been the benefits of the current rules to you
Net neutrality. (I thought obvious.)
As to the future, more than enough reason to worry.
Again a non-answer. What *benefits*, specifically, has so-called 'net
neutrality brought you? How is your service different, and presumably
better, under the current regulatory regime than it was under the old?

Thanks.

Bob Harper
Bozo
2017-07-24 12:38:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Harper
Again a non-answer. What *benefits*, specifically, has so-called 'net
neutrality brought you?
An answer you disagree with is not a " non-answer." One more time:

https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now

From the article :

“Chairman Pai wants to ditch Title II and return the FCC to a “light touch” Title I approach. Translation: Pai wants to give control of the internet to the very companies that violated Net Neutrality for years before the FCC adopted its current rules in 2015. "
Frank Berger
2017-07-24 13:50:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bozo
Post by Bob Harper
Again a non-answer. What *benefits*, specifically, has so-called 'net
neutrality brought you?
https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now
“Chairman Pai wants to ditch Title II and return the FCC to a “light touch” Title I approach. Translation: Pai wants to give control of the internet to the very companies that violated Net Neutrality for years before the FCC adopted its current rules in 2015. "
I think what we would like to see as an explanation of why
the concept of "net neutrality" is good in the first place.
"Net neutrality" is a government-imposed regulation that
like all regulations has benefits and costs (often in the
form of unintended consequences). It can't just be assumed
that "net neutrality" is a good thing just because the word
neutrality has generally positive connotations.

The trade-off would seem to be, as I said before, that in
adopting net neutrality we transfer the ability of
distorting information from the private sector (where there
is at least some competition tending to limit it) to the
awesome power of the government (admitting that voters have
the ability to get rid of a government that abuses its
control over the net).
O
2017-07-24 19:40:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bozo
Post by Bob Harper
Again a non-answer. What *benefits*, specifically, has so-called 'net
neutrality brought you?
https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now
³Chairman Pai wants to ditch Title II and return the FCC to a ³light touch²
Title I approach. Translation: Pai wants to give control of the internet to
the very companies that violated Net Neutrality for years before the FCC
adopted its current rules in 2015. "
It's my understanding that what's meant by Net Neutrality, is that
ISP's (the people who deliver the internet to you, the user) cannot be
'bribed' to favor content from one internet vendor over another. For
example, Netflix could not pay Comcast to make sure that Netflix
streams go through without hiccups or pauses, at the cost of denying
bandwidth to, say, HBO GO, or YouTube. Net Neutrality is a doctrine
that dictates that all channels suffer equally from lack of bandwidth.

It's a bit similar to telephone land lines, where you could pay extra
to get better sound, less noise on a special line between two points,
to carry things like radio and television broadcasts.

As bandwidth speeds keep increasing, it may soon become a moot point.

There may be an ISP who might want to punish a vendor who didn't supply
a bribe, but this is unlikely, as what ISP wants to be slower to
deliver content than a competitor? More likely, it's a decision made
to allocate bandwidth.

-Owen
Frank Berger
2017-07-24 20:09:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by O
Post by Bozo
Post by Bob Harper
Again a non-answer. What *benefits*, specifically, has so-called 'net
neutrality brought you?
https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now
³Chairman Pai wants to ditch Title II and return the FCC to a ³light touch²
Title I approach. Translation: Pai wants to give control of the internet to
the very companies that violated Net Neutrality for years before the FCC
adopted its current rules in 2015. "
It's my understanding that what's meant by Net Neutrality, is that
ISP's (the people who deliver the internet to you, the user) cannot be
'bribed' to favor content from one internet vendor over another. For
example, Netflix could not pay Comcast to make sure that Netflix
streams go through without hiccups or pauses, at the cost of denying
bandwidth to, say, HBO GO, or YouTube. Net Neutrality is a doctrine
that dictates that all channels suffer equally from lack of bandwidth.
It's a bit similar to telephone land lines, where you could pay extra
to get better sound, less noise on a special line between two points,
to carry things like radio and television broadcasts.
As bandwidth speeds keep increasing, it may soon become a moot point.
There may be an ISP who might want to punish a vendor who didn't supply
a bribe, but this is unlikely, as what ISP wants to be slower to
deliver content than a competitor? More likely, it's a decision made
to allocate bandwidth.
-Owen
Another view, highly simplified, but perhaps illustrative
(I didn't write this):

**************************************************************
Peering agreements are what the Internet is built on.

Let's simplify it to help you understand. (WARNING: If you
are reading this and are pedantic, the following is greatly
simplified.)

Let's say you have a network that has connections in
Chicago, Nashville, and Atlanta. But you have no connections
you own in New York.

You have a customer who wants to connect to a server in New
York, so you need to pass that traffic off to my company
that has connections in New York, Nashville, and Dallas.

My customer in Dallas wants to connect to a server in
Chicago - but I can't get them all the way, I can get them
to Nashville (where we both have connections) but then they
have to go to your network.

Well, to make things work smoothly, networks like your and
mine set up peering arrangements to make these types of
handoffs faster (all our customers get better service, we
have less problems to deal with) and usually that's a simple
handshake type deal, it really makes no sense for us to
monitor the usage and bill each other, since 99.9% of the
time the traffic is going to be roughly equal and therefore
we're going end up cancelling out each other's bill, so it
would really just be making busy work for no real gain.

Pretty much all the major providers do this, it is part of
how the network is global and usable and fast.

Now, Netflix comes along, and they have customers in
Chicago, New York, Atlanta, Dallas and Nashville. So they
want us to peer with them - and that will improve things for
the customers we have in those cities, but unlike a
traditional peering arrangement - the mutual benefit
basically goes out the window - because unlike the agreement
and peering me and you have setup, Netflix pretty much just
pushes data downstream - and they push a metric shit ton of
it. Nothing is going back up the pipe to offset our
addtional costs or improve overall connectivity etc.

So, me and you look at the situation and say "hey, these
fuckers are basically getting a free ride by abusing the
system we've spent ~30 years as engineers making work. Maybe
they should help spread some of that cost around since
between 20-30% of the traffic going through our network is
theirs." So we go to Netflix and point out our concerns and
say, hey, we figure with our bi-directional peers, we're
spending X and getting Y in return, with your peering, we're
spending X and getting... basically nothing. Maybe if you
pay us an equal amount the Y would get with a traditional
peering setup, we can keep doing this, otherwise, we're not
going let you put this server in our data center and pay for
the electricity and maintenance etc."

Netflix turns around and screams to their customer base -
"These two fuckers are screwing you over - they expect us to
pay for bandwidth both ways, this goes against the
historical agreements networks are built on, and you know
what they expect us to pay so much, that we might have to
raise all of your bills $0.05 per month (wait this sounds
better) $0.60 a year to cover our added costs!!! Make
government force them to not charge us!!"
r***@gmail.com
2017-07-25 00:37:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Frank Berger
Post by O
Post by Bozo
Post by Bob Harper
Again a non-answer. What *benefits*, specifically, has so-called 'net
neutrality brought you?
https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now
³Chairman Pai wants to ditch Title II and return the FCC to a ³light touch²
Title I approach. Translation: Pai wants to give control of the internet to
the very companies that violated Net Neutrality for years before the FCC
adopted its current rules in 2015. "
It's my understanding that what's meant by Net Neutrality, is that
ISP's (the people who deliver the internet to you, the user) cannot be
'bribed' to favor content from one internet vendor over another. For
example, Netflix could not pay Comcast to make sure that Netflix
streams go through without hiccups or pauses, at the cost of denying
bandwidth to, say, HBO GO, or YouTube. Net Neutrality is a doctrine
that dictates that all channels suffer equally from lack of bandwidth.
It's a bit similar to telephone land lines, where you could pay extra
to get better sound, less noise on a special line between two points,
to carry things like radio and television broadcasts.
As bandwidth speeds keep increasing, it may soon become a moot point.
There may be an ISP who might want to punish a vendor who didn't supply
a bribe, but this is unlikely, as what ISP wants to be slower to
deliver content than a competitor? More likely, it's a decision made
to allocate bandwidth.
-Owen
Another view, highly simplified, but perhaps illustrative
**************************************************************
Peering agreements are what the Internet is built on.
Let's simplify it to help you understand. (WARNING: If you
are reading this and are pedantic, the following is greatly
simplified.)
Let's say you have a network that has connections in
Chicago, Nashville, and Atlanta. But you have no connections
you own in New York.
You have a customer who wants to connect to a server in New
York, so you need to pass that traffic off to my company
that has connections in New York, Nashville, and Dallas.
My customer in Dallas wants to connect to a server in
Chicago - but I can't get them all the way, I can get them
to Nashville (where we both have connections) but then they
have to go to your network.
Well, to make things work smoothly, networks like your and
mine set up peering arrangements to make these types of
handoffs faster (all our customers get better service, we
have less problems to deal with) and usually that's a simple
handshake type deal, it really makes no sense for us to
monitor the usage and bill each other, since 99.9% of the
time the traffic is going to be roughly equal and therefore
we're going end up cancelling out each other's bill, so it
would really just be making busy work for no real gain.
Pretty much all the major providers do this, it is part of
how the network is global and usable and fast.
Now, Netflix comes along, and they have customers in
Chicago, New York, Atlanta, Dallas and Nashville. So they
want us to peer with them - and that will improve things for
the customers we have in those cities, but unlike a
traditional peering arrangement - the mutual benefit
basically goes out the window - because unlike the agreement
and peering me and you have setup, Netflix pretty much just
pushes data downstream - and they push a metric shit ton of
it. Nothing is going back up the pipe to offset our
addtional costs or improve overall connectivity etc.
So, me and you look at the situation and say "hey, these
fuckers are basically getting a free ride by abusing the
system we've spent ~30 years as engineers making work. Maybe
they should help spread some of that cost around since
between 20-30% of the traffic going through our network is
theirs." So we go to Netflix and point out our concerns and
say, hey, we figure with our bi-directional peers, we're
spending X and getting Y in return, with your peering, we're
spending X and getting... basically nothing. Maybe if you
pay us an equal amount the Y would get with a traditional
peering setup, we can keep doing this, otherwise, we're not
going let you put this server in our data center and pay for
the electricity and maintenance etc."
Netflix turns around and screams to their customer base -
"These two fuckers are screwing you over - they expect us to
pay for bandwidth both ways, this goes against the
historical agreements networks are built on, and you know
what they expect us to pay so much, that we might have to
raise all of your bills $0.05 per month (wait this sounds
better) $0.60 a year to cover our added costs!!! Make
government force them to not charge us!!"
Frank, this is much closer to the mark. There are two different concepts in the use within the word 'network'. One was like the old Bell System: a conduit for content provided entirely by third parties, with the odd exception for time and weather services. The second was the TV networks, who owned both content and a technical network. Net neutrality applied to the Bell System when third parties wished to use it to originate or terminate their own transmission networks. They had to pay to do so, out of the revenue they themselves generated, and the amount they were supposed to pay was the same as the separated Bell System long distance network. This was neutral.
Cable companies have never been or pretended to be neutral. They decide who gets carried on their networks, and they negotiate payments for this carriage. They price the carried content to their own customers and make a profit doing so.
They have now acquired content of their own, and use this in negotiations as a bargaining chip: you can't carry my network A unless you also carry my networks B and C, and pay me at least x. Disney led the way here: ESPN (and its many variants), the Disney Channel, and ABC network TV are content compilations intended to bootstrap each other on to other cable systems unrelated to Disney, by becoming 'must-see' TV for different viewer segments.

The internet model of free symmetric peering worked early on for the DoD and for university research networking (all the money at all nodes effectively came from the DoD, except for Bell Laboratories) but it breaks down when the common network is exploited by pure content distributors who don't want to pay. Netflix, Pandora, and most other music or entertainment services fit this model, as does internet-delivered Dish, DirectTV, and Sky programming.
These providers bill customers directly, and they don't want to pay for transmission out of their revenues.
Da Zecret Archivz
2017-08-03 18:59:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bozo
http://tinyurl.com/y7nfyr9d
can't wait to vote for Trump again in 2020! Better than any Democrat.
Loading...