Only YOU Can Protect Net Neutrality

[Hobbes]

Really?

Then how come when I call in to Cox and change my internet package from Preferred to Premier my speed goes up instantly?
Same modem, same line, same ISP.

Because the Cox customer representative sends out an initialization string that programs the cable modem with new limits.

 

[_CY_]

already starting to see bandwidth slow to a craw anytime streaming video is being downloaded. just wait a bit .. my prediction is your ISP will start charging for premium service that doesn't throttle the bandwidth you are already paying for.

hmmmm let's see .. ISP charges content provider for access ... ISP charges retail customer by the month for access at mb/sec speeds .. next ISP will charge retail customer to access bandwidth they are already paying for ...

 

[LightningCrash]

Imagine that!
I bet that could make traffic on the network somewhat uneven between download and upload statistics for the network as a whole.

And if it were symmetrical you'd be griping about how they're throttling the downloads by wasting frequency on unused upload capacity.
But we don't know how balanced the network as a whole might be.

Really?

Then how come when I call in to Cox and change my internet package from Preferred to Premier my speed goes up instantly?
Same modem, same line, same ISP.

So you're asserting that because there are tiers of service you can purchase on your last mile speed, that's throttling?
That's different from your earlier assertions.

 

[Hobbes]

So you're asserting that because there are tiers of service you can purchase on your last mile speed, that's throttling?
That's different from your earlier assertions.

My ISP is throttling both my up and down speeds to the specs of one of the packages they offer.

I wish they didn't but they do.
Its their network and they set the limits for upload and download speed.
It seems somewhat dishonest for them to create a network that is predicated on a network designed around more downloading than uploading and then turn around and demand a surcharge because there is more downloading than uploading on their network.

 

[SoonerP226]

Here's a take I hadn't heard before (from the operator of a WISP in Wyoming):
[video=youtube_share;rt5aHSkRuGc]http://youtu.be/rt5aHSkRuGc[/video]

 

[LightningCrash]

My ISP is throttling both my up and down speeds to the specs of one of the packages they offer.

I wish they didn't but they do.
Its their network and they set the limits for upload and download speed.
It seems somewhat dishonest for them to create a network that is predicated on a network designed around more downloading than uploading and then turn around and demand a surcharge because there is more downloading than uploading on their network.

So you're getting the line speed that you agree to pay for, and that's throttling? Because they didn't give you 100/20 for the price of a lower tier?
These higher tiers consume more resources from the moment you hit a node, and keep on going.
How do you see a business model working where everyone is 100/20 or 42/30 ? I doubt they even have the node capacity to support that.
Normally I hear in NN arguments "customers aren't getting what they pay for" but this is bizarre.

It seems dishonest for Level 3 to agree to peering that is predicated on an equitable exchange of traffic and then turn around, use it 5:1 inequitably and then demand extra free peering for their CDN business. Somehow this only results in your mind of the ISPs being at fault: We have little evidence that any other peer is congested.
We don't know the terms of what these ISPs have asked of Level3. A lot of people turn it into ISPs saying "f*** you, pay me," but they seem to speak from ignorance on the matter.

 

[Mike_60]

I didn't read this whole thread nor do I need to. I did read some of it tho.

Here's my take on it.

Fukk the FCC! I'm old enough to remember when Ma Bell was broken up. They said it was a wonderful thing. I guess it was for some small number because EVERYBODY'S phone bill went up. A lot! Cha Ching...
Then I remember when they essentially put Ma Bell back together again. EVERYBODY'S phone bill went up. A lot! Cha Ching.

There is no better check on big business than competition. You don't like "them" throttling you down? Someone will be along shortly that won't. Guess what "them" does then? They quit throttling you down to compete. Same thing with Healthcare coverage or anything else. It's called capitalism. .gov is NOT the answer. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand.

The Baby Bells were going broke that is why they were swallowed up by their stronger siblings. Not only were they going broke, but the national networks were a mess because their was no money to maintain them properly. AT&T itself was bought out by SBC for the same reasons, and then SBC adopted the AT&T name for its own, because of the worldwide recognition of the brand. The company was literally bought at ten cents on the dollar because it was broke and broken. Also, for your info, when the gov broke up Ma Bell many tens of thousands of great paying jobs disappeared over the next few years as the babies floundered. Residential service never did, nor does it now, pay for itself as that service is still subsidized by other parts of the company at a financial loss.

 

[Mike_60]

So you're getting the line speed that you agree to pay for, and that's throttling? Because they didn't give you 100/20 for the price of a lower tier?
These higher tiers consume more resources from the moment you hit a node, and keep on going.
How do you see a business model working where everyone is 100/20 or 42/30 ? I doubt they even have the node capacity to support that.
Normally I hear in NN arguments "customers aren't getting what they pay for" but this is bizarre.

It seems dishonest for Level 3 to agree to peering that is predicated on an equitable exchange of traffic and then turn around, use it 5:1 inequitably and then demand extra free peering for their CDN business. Somehow this only results in your mind of the ISPs being at fault: We have little evidence that any other peer is congested.
We don't know the terms of what these ISPs have asked of Level3. A lot of people turn it into ISPs saying "f*** you, pay me," but they seem to speak from ignorance on the matter.

Everybody seems to want someone else to foot the bill for what they want these days. I guess it's the new Amerikan way.

 

[Hobbes]

It seems dishonest for Level 3 to agree to peering that is predicated on an equitable exchange of traffic and then turn around, use it 5:1 inequitably and then demand extra free peering for their CDN business.

Maybe that imbalance wouldn't exist if the ISP didn't cap their customers upload rates.

Maybe people could stream directly from their own connection instead of uploading their family video to a cloud provider who then turns around and streams it back down, through L3, to friends and family members on the same ISP.

 

[LightningCrash]

Maybe that imbalance wouldn't exist if the ISP didn't cap their customers upload rates.

Maybe people could stream directly from their own connection instead of uploading their family video to a cloud provider who then turns around and streams it back down, through L3, to friends and family members on the same ISP.

And yet that's not what any business is asking for. Level 3 wants more peering. There's no maybe to this one: the imbalance on the settlement-free link wouldn't exist if Level3 was paying the way for their CDN links.

Again on the change, how do you envision that business model working?
What does grandma pay, who just checks weather underground and hotmail?
What does Tony pay, who has an equallogic sumo array at home and downloads 24 hours a day?
What about the mom of 4 who has kids watching Netflix during peak hours?
Then how do you make all of that profitable?
Also Level3 still wants free peering, so give them some more. Also don't charge your customers anything extra.
How do you work all that in?