|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | What are you even trying to say?
A CDN is simply another location to host data. It's really not that difficult to understand.
The data itself is not given traffic priority. |
So are you in favor of ISPs picking and choosing which content to serve at a higher or lower quality then?
That's what is happening with Netflix.
That's not neutrality. |
What are you talking about? That is NOT happening with Netflix.
Netflix is basically leasing space on local servers. That's all. They do not get traffic priority. |
Is this a true or false statement? (Just so I have my facts straight)
By working with ISPs to install CDNs at the ISP directly, it allows for Netflix content to be served at a higher quality than if they did not install CDNs. |
What do you mean by "higher quality"?
It's closer to the ISP than if it was at Netflix's own data center. So yeah, customers near that ISP will get their stuff faster. But it's not because it gets any traffic priority.
It's like the difference of having a delivery driver bringing product to a customer in Los Angeles. If they come from a Santa Barbara they have to navigate traffic for a longer distance. If they had a distribution center in Los Angeles, they still don't get any special favors when it comes to traffic priority. But they just happen to be closer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ContagiousInspiration wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | PhoenixForce wrote: | | lakersken80 wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | I don't get why anyone would argue against Net Neutrality.
The core point of the legislation is that all internet content should be handled equally as far as access and control.
That's in the best interest of the users.
Unless you're a big fan of watching your cable/dish/favorite network hold you hostage as they deny you access while looking for for ways to fill their own coffers and take more of your money, you'd be against seeing that same kind of thing happen to your internet. |
Sadly, most of the people against Net Neutrality are people with a stake in the telecommunications companies...from browsing the forums across different websites, they usually work for Verizon, AT&T, or some other ISP or cable company. Also some of these people against Net Neutrality probably have stock in those companies....or they could just be your typical uniformed low information voter who is against net neutrality because its an evil government organization trying to keep a corporation in check. |
Exactly. It makes no sense as a consumer to be against net neutrality. |
Then why do T-Mobile customers love the Music Freedom program?
If I start a new site "Ollo2", a music streaming service featuring me singing a capella, I'm at a competitive disadvantage to say, Spotify, which you can stream infinitely on a T-Mobile plan with no impact to your data allotment.
But no one seems to mind. That is clearly a scenario where a data packet is not a data packet so to speak (a requirement of net neutrality). Some data packets cost you, and some don't. |
You just provided the answer ..an even stronger monopoly is what they will have..
Currently that music or site gets to EVERYONE EQUALLY but your plan puts up major barriers and issues.. And puts even more power into people who abuse any power they get.. |
It's not equal. The value of a Spotify bit is 0 to T-Mobile. But the value of a bit from another streaming music provider is a positive non-zero number that is deducted from your monthly allocation.
That is not neutral yet no one cares because they feel they are benefiting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | What do you mean by "higher quality"?
It's closer to the ISP than if it was at Netflix's own data center. So yeah, customers near that ISP will get their stuff faster. But it's not because it gets any traffic priority.
It's like the difference of having a delivery driver bringing product to a customer in Los Angeles. If they come from a Santa Barbara they have to navigate traffic for a longer distance. If they had a distribution center in Los Angeles, they still don't get any special favors when it comes to traffic priority. But they just happen to be closer. |
By higher quality, I'm talking about higher quality of video streams. For instance, HD vs SD. (Did you read the article? It speaks to how the installation of CDNs, in addition other benefits, will improve the quality of the streams).
Are you saying that the installation of a CDN at the ISP does not improve the video quality at all for Netflix?
If it does, then that is not neutral since Netflix's data is being treated differently than LakersGround.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17252
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | What do you mean by "higher quality"?
It's closer to the ISP than if it was at Netflix's own data center. So yeah, customers near that ISP will get their stuff faster. But it's not because it gets any traffic priority.
It's like the difference of having a delivery driver bringing product to a customer in Los Angeles. If they come from a Santa Barbara they have to navigate traffic for a longer distance. If they had a distribution center in Los Angeles, they still don't get any special favors when it comes to traffic priority. But they just happen to be closer. |
By higher quality, I'm talking about higher quality of video streams. For instance, HD vs SD. (Did you read the article? It speaks to how the installation of CDNs, in addition other benefits, will improve the quality of the streams).
Are you saying that the installation of a CDN at the ISP does not improve the video quality at all for Netflix?
If it does, then that is not neutral since Netflix's data is being treated differently than LakersGround.net |
I'm not getting the sense that you understand how data moves around the internet and its making your examples and arguments look downright odd. If you don't understand how things work (and reading a couple of articles doesn't apply), then step back for a minute and try to learn before jumping into this issue.
First, to answer your question, no, HD vs SD has absolutely nothing to do with where Netflix locates its servers. They could be located in your back yard or in China, and you'd still get the exact same video file streamed to your computer/TV. What makes a difference is latency.
As you may know, data travel is restricted by the speed of light (among other things). Because of this physical restriction, if latency is important to your product you want to be located as close to where you're going as possible. A great example of this is how high frequency traders locate their boxes right next to stock exchanges so they can get the millisecond advantages over competitors.
Lets take another example. If you know how to pull up a command prompt on your computer, run a traceroute to any number of websites. You'll see the data packets start on your system, go through your router, your ISP, any number of backbone providers (like level3) and then finally get to your destination. The more hops you pass through, (generally) the longer your data takes to get to your destination.
Before Netflix's peering agreement, your trace might have looked something like this (simplified):
your router
your ISP
some backbone provider
some CDN
Now that Netflix has signed peering agreements with ISP's, your trace looks like:
your router
your ISP
Less hops, less latency, the data gets to you quicker because it has less distance to travel. There's less chance that some server along the line is saturated, causing buffering issues for your streaming video.
Now, this is where I think you're getting confused. Say you have a 20mbps cable connection at home, and you want to stream a HD video.
If you try to stream that video from a server in China, you will possibly have problems because to get to you, that data has to go from the Chinese server, through trans-pacific cables, through a backbone provider in Los Angeles, through your ISP and eventually to you.
If you try to stream that video from a Netflix co-hosted server, the data just comes from your ISP, eliminating all of the rest of the hops and their latency.
The data is the same in both instances, but it takes longer to get to you from one than the other. Your connection isn't the bottleneck; the laws of physics and server locations are.
If LG moved its servers from Los Angeles to India, the data wouldn't be "less neutral" (what you're arguing -- that the speed of light violates net neutrality) just because it takes longer to get to you. It'd take longer to get to you because it's further away.
Where Comcast and Verizon abused neutrality was by artificially choking Netflix content as it passed through their servers. You -could- have gotten that data just fine (and you could if you hid behind a VPN), but they didn't let you because they wanted to get paid.
I hope this helps you understand a few things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | What do you mean by "higher quality"?
It's closer to the ISP than if it was at Netflix's own data center. So yeah, customers near that ISP will get their stuff faster. But it's not because it gets any traffic priority.
It's like the difference of having a delivery driver bringing product to a customer in Los Angeles. If they come from a Santa Barbara they have to navigate traffic for a longer distance. If they had a distribution center in Los Angeles, they still don't get any special favors when it comes to traffic priority. But they just happen to be closer. |
By higher quality, I'm talking about higher quality of video streams. For instance, HD vs SD. (Did you read the article? It speaks to how the installation of CDNs, in addition other benefits, will improve the quality of the streams).
Are you saying that the installation of a CDN at the ISP does not improve the video quality at all for Netflix?
If it does, then that is not neutral since Netflix's data is being treated differently than LakersGround.net |
I thought I explained this pretty clearly in layman's terms a few times already. I'm not thinking that you are purposely choosing to not understand how the technology works.
Netflix doesn't have one CDN. They have many, scattered all over the place. It is the same as having several retail locations.
They DO NOT get traffic preference.
The reason for better service and quality isn't due to traffic preference. It's due to pretty much the same as a delivery driver having to take fewer streets to get to a customer's house because the warehouse is local. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DuncanIdaho and Reflexx -- really appreciate the breakdown. You're right, I'm probably not as technical and knowledgeable about server architecture as the both of you.
DI's breakdown though, is exactly what I was talking about. Specifically I'm referring to this bit:
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | Before Netflix's peering agreement, your trace might have looked something like this (simplified):
your router
your ISP
some backbone provider
some CDN
Now that Netflix has signed peering agreements with ISP's, your trace looks like:
your router
your ISP |
How is that neutral? The ISP is prioritizing the data from Netflix on such a setup and others have to work via the traditional route (via backbone).
There must be some advantage gained by virtue of the fact that Netflix is plugged directly in to the ISP otherwise why would they do it? It's that advantage that puts Netflix on a different playing field than other content providers.
How is that not a "fast lane" for Netflix? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | DuncanIdaho and Reflexx -- really appreciate the breakdown. You're right, I'm probably not as technical and knowledgeable about server architecture as the both of you.
DI's breakdown though, is exactly what I was talking about. Specifically I'm referring to this bit:
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | Before Netflix's peering agreement, your trace might have looked something like this (simplified):
your router
your ISP
some backbone provider
some CDN
Now that Netflix has signed peering agreements with ISP's, your trace looks like:
your router
your ISP |
How is that neutral? The ISP is prioritizing the data from Netflix on such a setup and others have to work via the traditional route (via backbone).
There must be some advantage gained by virtue of the fact that Netflix is plugged directly in to the ISP otherwise why would they do it? It's that advantage that puts Netflix on a different playing field than other content providers.
How is that not a "fast lane" for Netflix? |
It's not a fast lane. It's like extra retail outlets.
Think of an ISP as a city. That ISP let Netflix put up a store in their city.
All traffic going on the roads in the city is treated the same. If someone drives in from out of town they navigate the same streets as a local does.The locals get no preference.
But the local didn't have to navigate traffic in a different city and then the freeway to get there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | DuncanIdaho and Reflexx -- really appreciate the breakdown. You're right, I'm probably not as technical and knowledgeable about server architecture as the both of you.
DI's breakdown though, is exactly what I was talking about. Specifically I'm referring to this bit:
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | Before Netflix's peering agreement, your trace might have looked something like this (simplified):
your router
your ISP
some backbone provider
some CDN
Now that Netflix has signed peering agreements with ISP's, your trace looks like:
your router
your ISP |
How is that neutral? The ISP is prioritizing the data from Netflix on such a setup and others have to work via the traditional route (via backbone).
There must be some advantage gained by virtue of the fact that Netflix is plugged directly in to the ISP otherwise why would they do it? It's that advantage that puts Netflix on a different playing field than other content providers.
How is that not a "fast lane" for Netflix? |
It's not a fast lane. It's like extra retail outlets.
Think of an ISP as a city. That ISP let Netflix put up a store in their city.
All traffic going on the roads in the city is treated the same. If someone drives in from out of town they navigate the same streets as a local does.The locals get no preference.
But the local didn't have to navigate traffic in a different city and then the freeway to get there. |
Hey, I appreciate your patience here.
How do I, a Netflix viewer, benefit from Netflix working directly with the ISP in this manner? Do I get better quality video? A more reliable stream or overall service? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | DuncanIdaho and Reflexx -- really appreciate the breakdown. You're right, I'm probably not as technical and knowledgeable about server architecture as the both of you.
DI's breakdown though, is exactly what I was talking about. Specifically I'm referring to this bit:
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | Before Netflix's peering agreement, your trace might have looked something like this (simplified):
your router
your ISP
some backbone provider
some CDN
Now that Netflix has signed peering agreements with ISP's, your trace looks like:
your router
your ISP |
How is that neutral? The ISP is prioritizing the data from Netflix on such a setup and others have to work via the traditional route (via backbone).
There must be some advantage gained by virtue of the fact that Netflix is plugged directly in to the ISP otherwise why would they do it? It's that advantage that puts Netflix on a different playing field than other content providers.
How is that not a "fast lane" for Netflix? |
It's not a fast lane. It's like extra retail outlets.
Think of an ISP as a city. That ISP let Netflix put up a store in their city.
All traffic going on the roads in the city is treated the same. If someone drives in from out of town they navigate the same streets as a local does.The locals get no preference.
But the local didn't have to navigate traffic in a different city and then the freeway to get there. |
Hey, I appreciate your patience here.
How do I, a Netflix viewer, benefit from Netflix working directly with the ISP in this manner? Do I get better quality video? A more reliable stream or overall service? |
The same as with any data center that's physically closer to your service provider. Less buffering. Lower chance of a problem along the way because data is traveling less distance.
Just like a delivery driver coming to your house from a local store will be you more reliable service than if he was from far away. The actual speed difference might not be noticeable at all. But the dependability goes up because there's a smaller chance that the data hits high traffic since it's using fewer streets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | DuncanIdaho and Reflexx -- really appreciate the breakdown. You're right, I'm probably not as technical and knowledgeable about server architecture as the both of you.
DI's breakdown though, is exactly what I was talking about. Specifically I'm referring to this bit:
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | Before Netflix's peering agreement, your trace might have looked something like this (simplified):
your router
your ISP
some backbone provider
some CDN
Now that Netflix has signed peering agreements with ISP's, your trace looks like:
your router
your ISP |
How is that neutral? The ISP is prioritizing the data from Netflix on such a setup and others have to work via the traditional route (via backbone).
There must be some advantage gained by virtue of the fact that Netflix is plugged directly in to the ISP otherwise why would they do it? It's that advantage that puts Netflix on a different playing field than other content providers.
How is that not a "fast lane" for Netflix? |
It's not a fast lane. It's like extra retail outlets.
Think of an ISP as a city. That ISP let Netflix put up a store in their city.
All traffic going on the roads in the city is treated the same. If someone drives in from out of town they navigate the same streets as a local does.The locals get no preference.
But the local didn't have to navigate traffic in a different city and then the freeway to get there. |
Hey, I appreciate your patience here.
How do I, a Netflix viewer, benefit from Netflix working directly with the ISP in this manner? Do I get better quality video? A more reliable stream or overall service? |
The same as with any data center that's physically closer to your service provider. Less buffering. Lower chance of a problem along the way because data is traveling less distance.
Just like a delivery driver coming to your house from a local store will be you more reliable service than if he was from far away. The actual speed difference might not be noticeable at all. But the dependability goes up because there's a smaller chance that the data hits high traffic since it's using fewer streets. |
Ok, that makes sense (and is along the lines with what I thought).
So do you think it is acceptable for the ISP to pick and choose which content providers get more reliable service, less buffering, and lower chance of problems in delivering the content? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ExPatLkrFan
Star Player
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 3987
Location: Mukdahan, Thailand
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are a lot of advantages to CDNs since they are located locally there are a lot less hops (and potentially logjams) to go thru to get the data to the enduser. It also provides the site owner the advantage of tailoring content to geographical areas. There is also built in redundancy of data as well. If you have to buy enough bandwidth to satisfy say 2 million customers it makes more sense to spread it out to where those customers might be especially if the data is heavily multimedia.
This is very different from an ISP throttling data to extort extra fees from a web company. In the CDN example the customer may be on a server of one ISP and still get the advantages of having good service to its local customers even if they are on other ISPs. Should Netflix have to pay a fee to every lousy ISP in a geographical area just to be able to get decent service?
Really CDNs have nothing to do with Net Neutrality and more to do with serving customers within geographical regions. There are problems in SE Asia getting bandwidth from North American servers. The problem goes to the fact that the ISPs overbook their International gateways and during prime time it is often worse than 56k modem speeds. Here in Thailand you can speed test to an incountry server or one in Laos or Singapore and get your full internet speed (less overhead of course). But when you try that same test to a US server good luck. The only alternative is to purchase a premium plan that gets you on a gateway that is not oversold by such a great ratio. Content providers however have figured it out and big companies like Google and Yahoo have located CDNs locally so you can play HD Youtube videos with no problems. Thus the content providers are getting what they paid for. Not having to pay more for something that they should have had already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | DuncanIdaho and Reflexx -- really appreciate the breakdown. You're right, I'm probably not as technical and knowledgeable about server architecture as the both of you.
DI's breakdown though, is exactly what I was talking about. Specifically I'm referring to this bit:
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | Before Netflix's peering agreement, your trace might have looked something like this (simplified):
your router
your ISP
some backbone provider
some CDN
Now that Netflix has signed peering agreements with ISP's, your trace looks like:
your router
your ISP |
How is that neutral? The ISP is prioritizing the data from Netflix on such a setup and others have to work via the traditional route (via backbone).
There must be some advantage gained by virtue of the fact that Netflix is plugged directly in to the ISP otherwise why would they do it? It's that advantage that puts Netflix on a different playing field than other content providers.
How is that not a "fast lane" for Netflix? |
It's not a fast lane. It's like extra retail outlets.
Think of an ISP as a city. That ISP let Netflix put up a store in their city.
All traffic going on the roads in the city is treated the same. If someone drives in from out of town they navigate the same streets as a local does.The locals get no preference.
But the local didn't have to navigate traffic in a different city and then the freeway to get there. |
Hey, I appreciate your patience here.
How do I, a Netflix viewer, benefit from Netflix working directly with the ISP in this manner? Do I get better quality video? A more reliable stream or overall service? |
The same as with any data center that's physically closer to your service provider. Less buffering. Lower chance of a problem along the way because data is traveling less distance.
Just like a delivery driver coming to your house from a local store will be you more reliable service than if he was from far away. The actual speed difference might not be noticeable at all. But the dependability goes up because there's a smaller chance that the data hits high traffic since it's using fewer streets. |
Ok, that makes sense (and is along the lines with what I thought).
So do you think it is acceptable for the ISP to pick and choose which content providers get more reliable service, less buffering, and lower chance of problems in delivering the content? |
That's not what they're doing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
K28
Franchise Player
Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 10038
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | Just curious for those in favor of net neutrality -- are you opposed to the use of CDNs by content providers? A CDN is a Content Delivery Network.
Sites that produce content, such as NBA.com, leverage a CDN (by paying for it) in order to deliver its video and other content to you faster and at a higher quality.
Not all websites use a CDN because it costs money to do so. Thus, since not all companies use a CDN to deliver their content, then that is a non-neutral scenario in which not all data is treated the same. |
CDN's have absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. Where are you getting this stuff?? |
I think he's trying to have a discussion on technical matters without technical knowledge. |
Actually, I think there are varying definitions of net neutrality. This is the one I'm speaking to.
Net neutrality is the principle that data on the Internet is moved blindly and impartially, without regard to content, destination or source.
That doesn't occur today. Content providers like Netflix have to use a fast lane that other providers don't have access to in order to get the streams they provide to people. That violates the definition above.
And not that is has to matter, but, Mark Cuban agrees.
"I want there to be fast lanes because there will be applications that need fast lanes ... I want certain medical apps that need the Internet to be able to get the bandwidth they need. There will be apps that doctors will carry on 5G networks that allow them to get live video from accident scenes and provide guidance. There will be machine vision apps that usage huge amounts of bandwidth. I want them to have fast lanes."
In a purely, 100% neutral world, your YouTube videos would be choppy, and Netflix would be unwatchable. People don't realize that.
|
Please explain. Because I call BS. |
It is total BS. Comcast and Verizon proved it by extorting Netflix (and holding its own subscribers hostage) and then magically providing excellent speeds when they got paid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | DuncanIdaho and Reflexx -- really appreciate the breakdown. You're right, I'm probably not as technical and knowledgeable about server architecture as the both of you.
DI's breakdown though, is exactly what I was talking about. Specifically I'm referring to this bit:
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | Before Netflix's peering agreement, your trace might have looked something like this (simplified):
your router
your ISP
some backbone provider
some CDN
Now that Netflix has signed peering agreements with ISP's, your trace looks like:
your router
your ISP |
How is that neutral? The ISP is prioritizing the data from Netflix on such a setup and others have to work via the traditional route (via backbone).
There must be some advantage gained by virtue of the fact that Netflix is plugged directly in to the ISP otherwise why would they do it? It's that advantage that puts Netflix on a different playing field than other content providers.
How is that not a "fast lane" for Netflix? |
It's not a fast lane. It's like extra retail outlets.
Think of an ISP as a city. That ISP let Netflix put up a store in their city.
All traffic going on the roads in the city is treated the same. If someone drives in from out of town they navigate the same streets as a local does.The locals get no preference.
But the local didn't have to navigate traffic in a different city and then the freeway to get there. |
Hey, I appreciate your patience here.
How do I, a Netflix viewer, benefit from Netflix working directly with the ISP in this manner? Do I get better quality video? A more reliable stream or overall service? |
The same as with any data center that's physically closer to your service provider. Less buffering. Lower chance of a problem along the way because data is traveling less distance.
Just like a delivery driver coming to your house from a local store will be you more reliable service than if he was from far away. The actual speed difference might not be noticeable at all. But the dependability goes up because there's a smaller chance that the data hits high traffic since it's using fewer streets. |
Ok, that makes sense (and is along the lines with what I thought).
So do you think it is acceptable for the ISP to pick and choose which content providers get more reliable service, less buffering, and lower chance of problems in delivering the content? |
That's not what they're doing. |
So which other content provider benefits from the agreement between Netflix and the ISP? None, right? That means my experience with Netflix will be more reliable, have less buffering and I'll experience a lower chance of problems than I would a competitive product that has not entered in to a peering agreement. I thought the whole point of net neutrality was to level the playing field.
Here's an excerpt from an article on MacWorld on the idea of content providers such as Netflix (and Apple) connecting directly with the ISP.
| Quote: | | Netflix, Apple, and any others who sign these direct deals make it challenging for other startup companies to enter the video space—unless those firms can secure the same arrangements and raise those additional funds necessary to pay ISPs. This may suit video-service incumbents, and aligns their interests with the ISPs. By raising the bar for new entrants, it allows the existing companies to keep prices static or even raise them, which is also a benefit. By paying ISPs, those video providers may make more money in the end, rather than less, by deterring competition. |
http://www.macworld.com/article/2465366/what-apples-new-content-delivery-network-means-for-net-neutrality-and-for-you.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
K28
Franchise Player
Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 10038
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Who benefits: The ISP, they get to charge Netflix and their subscribers for the same set of bits.
Who pays: You the consumer. Netflix will pass their extra cost down to you, and Comcast isn't lowering my bill anytime soon. Basically, it's an internet rate hike in disguise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kray28_ wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | Just curious for those in favor of net neutrality -- are you opposed to the use of CDNs by content providers? A CDN is a Content Delivery Network.
Sites that produce content, such as NBA.com, leverage a CDN (by paying for it) in order to deliver its video and other content to you faster and at a higher quality.
Not all websites use a CDN because it costs money to do so. Thus, since not all companies use a CDN to deliver their content, then that is a non-neutral scenario in which not all data is treated the same. |
CDN's have absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. Where are you getting this stuff?? |
I think he's trying to have a discussion on technical matters without technical knowledge. |
Actually, I think there are varying definitions of net neutrality. This is the one I'm speaking to.
Net neutrality is the principle that data on the Internet is moved blindly and impartially, without regard to content, destination or source.
That doesn't occur today. Content providers like Netflix have to use a fast lane that other providers don't have access to in order to get the streams they provide to people. That violates the definition above.
And not that is has to matter, but, Mark Cuban agrees.
"I want there to be fast lanes because there will be applications that need fast lanes ... I want certain medical apps that need the Internet to be able to get the bandwidth they need. There will be apps that doctors will carry on 5G networks that allow them to get live video from accident scenes and provide guidance. There will be machine vision apps that usage huge amounts of bandwidth. I want them to have fast lanes."
In a purely, 100% neutral world, your YouTube videos would be choppy, and Netflix would be unwatchable. People don't realize that.
|
Please explain. Because I call BS. |
It is total BS. Comcast and Verizon proved it by extorting Netflix (and holding its own subscribers hostage) and then magically providing excellent speeds when they got paid. |
Ok, where did you get that? The John Oliver rant? That's been debunked so that is the actual BS here.
What's funny about that whole thing is that Netflix complained to the FCC that they were being throttled by Comcast. An investigation ensued. It turned out what actually happened is that Netflix's own internet transit provider (Cogent) implemented a procedure, without telling anyone, that prioritized other non-Netflix customers causing Netflix to essentially grind to a halt so to speak.
Then Netflix (incorrectly) placed the blame on Comcast to the FCC.
Then Comcast and Netflix enter in to a peering agreement and Netflix enjoys improved performance.
There is some speculation and rumor, that Netflix conspired, with their own provider Cogent, to slow their own service down to pressure Comcast in to a deal. So it might actually have been Netflix holding Comcast hostage! Haha.
http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/11/cogent-now-admits-slowed-netflixs-traffic-creating-fast-lane-slow-lane.html
Last edited by ringfinger on Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kray28_ wrote: | Who benefits: The ISP, they get to charge Netflix and their subscribers for the same set of bits.
Who pays: You the consumer. Netflix will pass their extra cost down to you, and Comcast isn't lowering my bill anytime soon. Basically, it's an internet rate hike in disguise. |
I don't disagree with you. That's why I'm saying that arrangement, for all intents and purposes, essentially violates net neutrality. I'm not sure why "the net" would be limited to the last mile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17252
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | kray28_ wrote: | Who benefits: The ISP, they get to charge Netflix and their subscribers for the same set of bits.
Who pays: You the consumer. Netflix will pass their extra cost down to you, and Comcast isn't lowering my bill anytime soon. Basically, it's an internet rate hike in disguise. |
I don't disagree with you. That's why I'm saying that arrangement, for all intents and purposes, essentially violates net neutrality. I'm not sure why "the net" would be limited to the last mile. |
It shouldn't be. Backbone providers and ISP's should treat all data equally. When they don't, and content providers are forced to pay extortion money to get service back up to an acceptable level, we lose.
If backbone providers hadn't throttled Netflix and Netflix still went ahead and made peering arrangements, that's perfectly fine, because it's part of a business plan to provider a better experience to customers and give them a selling point over Amazon/Hulu/whatever. No violation of net neutrality, because the data was always treated equally.
That's not what happened though. Service was fine, then it was strangled by backbone providers to get some extra cash. That's a violation of neutrality, and that's the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | DuncanIdaho and Reflexx -- really appreciate the breakdown. You're right, I'm probably not as technical and knowledgeable about server architecture as the both of you.
DI's breakdown though, is exactly what I was talking about. Specifically I'm referring to this bit:
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | Before Netflix's peering agreement, your trace might have looked something like this (simplified):
your router
your ISP
some backbone provider
some CDN
Now that Netflix has signed peering agreements with ISP's, your trace looks like:
your router
your ISP |
How is that neutral? The ISP is prioritizing the data from Netflix on such a setup and others have to work via the traditional route (via backbone).
There must be some advantage gained by virtue of the fact that Netflix is plugged directly in to the ISP otherwise why would they do it? It's that advantage that puts Netflix on a different playing field than other content providers.
How is that not a "fast lane" for Netflix? |
It's not a fast lane. It's like extra retail outlets.
Think of an ISP as a city. That ISP let Netflix put up a store in their city.
All traffic going on the roads in the city is treated the same. If someone drives in from out of town they navigate the same streets as a local does.The locals get no preference.
But the local didn't have to navigate traffic in a different city and then the freeway to get there. |
Hey, I appreciate your patience here.
How do I, a Netflix viewer, benefit from Netflix working directly with the ISP in this manner? Do I get better quality video? A more reliable stream or overall service? |
The same as with any data center that's physically closer to your service provider. Less buffering. Lower chance of a problem along the way because data is traveling less distance.
Just like a delivery driver coming to your house from a local store will be you more reliable service than if he was from far away. The actual speed difference might not be noticeable at all. But the dependability goes up because there's a smaller chance that the data hits high traffic since it's using fewer streets. |
Ok, that makes sense (and is along the lines with what I thought).
So do you think it is acceptable for the ISP to pick and choose which content providers get more reliable service, less buffering, and lower chance of problems in delivering the content? |
That's not what they're doing. |
So which other content provider benefits from the agreement between Netflix and the ISP? None, right? That means my experience with Netflix will be more reliable, have less buffering and I'll experience a lower chance of problems than I would a competitive product that has not entered in to a peering agreement. I thought the whole point of net neutrality was to level the playing field.
Here's an excerpt from an article on MacWorld on the idea of content providers such as Netflix (and Apple) connecting directly with the ISP.
| Quote: | | Netflix, Apple, and any others who sign these direct deals make it challenging for other startup companies to enter the video space—unless those firms can secure the same arrangements and raise those additional funds necessary to pay ISPs. This may suit video-service incumbents, and aligns their interests with the ISPs. By raising the bar for new entrants, it allows the existing companies to keep prices static or even raise them, which is also a benefit. By paying ISPs, those video providers may make more money in the end, rather than less, by deterring competition. |
http://www.macworld.com/article/2465366/what-apples-new-content-delivery-network-means-for-net-neutrality-and-for-you.html |
You completely miss the point of net neutrality.
It is NOT to level the playing field. It's that you don't give traffic preference to anyone.
Everyone drives on the same streets.
If companies open up many local outlets (CDNs), that's not getting a special fast lane. It's just conceding that you need more locations since you don't have a fast lane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | kray28_ wrote: | Who benefits: The ISP, they get to charge Netflix and their subscribers for the same set of bits.
Who pays: You the consumer. Netflix will pass their extra cost down to you, and Comcast isn't lowering my bill anytime soon. Basically, it's an internet rate hike in disguise. |
I don't disagree with you. That's why I'm saying that arrangement, for all intents and purposes, essentially violates net neutrality. I'm not sure why "the net" would be limited to the last mile. |
It shouldn't be. Backbone providers and ISP's should treat all data equally. When they don't, and content providers are forced to pay extortion money to get service back up to an acceptable level, we lose.
If backbone providers hadn't throttled Netflix and Netflix still went ahead and made peering arrangements, that's perfectly fine, because it's part of a business plan to provider a better experience to customers and give them a selling point over Amazon/Hulu/whatever. No violation of net neutrality, because the data was always treated equally.
That's not what happened though. Service was fine, then it was strangled by backbone providers to get some extra cash. That's a violation of neutrality, and that's the problem. |
Well, we just have different definitions of net neutrality then. Net neutrality isn't about extortion in my book. You can violate net neutrality without extortion.
The ISP is treating the Netflix data delivery differently than the data from other video service providers.
And on top of that, they're charging me for it.
(Oh, and FWIW, Comcast never throttled Netflix. In fact, it appears Netflix may have throttled themselves).
Last edited by ringfinger on Tue Nov 25, 2014 9:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | So which other content provider benefits from the agreement between Netflix and the ISP? None, right? That means my experience with Netflix will be more reliable, have less buffering and I'll experience a lower chance of problems than I would a competitive product that has not entered in to a peering agreement. I thought the whole point of net neutrality was to level the playing field.
Here's an excerpt from an article on MacWorld on the idea of content providers such as Netflix (and Apple) connecting directly with the ISP.
| Quote: | | Netflix, Apple, and any others who sign these direct deals make it challenging for other startup companies to enter the video space—unless those firms can secure the same arrangements and raise those additional funds necessary to pay ISPs. This may suit video-service incumbents, and aligns their interests with the ISPs. By raising the bar for new entrants, it allows the existing companies to keep prices static or even raise them, which is also a benefit. By paying ISPs, those video providers may make more money in the end, rather than less, by deterring competition. |
http://www.macworld.com/article/2465366/what-apples-new-content-delivery-network-means-for-net-neutrality-and-for-you.html |
You completely miss the point of net neutrality.
It is NOT to level the playing field. It's that you don't give traffic preference to anyone.
Everyone drives on the same streets.
If companies open up many local outlets (CDNs), that's not getting a special fast lane. It's just conceding that you need more locations since you don't have a fast lane. |
Do you agree with this definition? I tried to find a neutral (no pun intended) source for it. It's from Wikipedia. Maybe you're operating under a different definition then?
| Quote: | | Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. |
Netflix data should not then, arrive to me more reliably, with less buffering, and with fewer problems than say, Bobs Video Library (dot com). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | Do you agree with this definition? I tried to find a neutral (no pun intended) source for it. It's from Wikipedia. Maybe you're operating under a different definition then?
| Quote: | | Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. |
Netflix data should not then, arrive to me more reliably, with less buffering, and with fewer problems than say, Bobs Video Library (dot com). |
I agree with the definition.
I don't know how you are coming to your conclusion.
Take this example.
---
Two stores. AMart and BMart. Both make Gizmos and deliver them to people.
There's a city called BigTown. Both AMart and BMart are far from BigTown. They both send drivers to BigTown to deliver product. Both drivers sometimes hit traffic on the way there.
Once they both get to BigTown, they are treated no different than anyone else driving in BigTown. BigTown does not give special road privileges to anyone.
Eventually, AMart decides that they will open up a distribution center in BigTown since they have so many customers there. That way it will cut on commute time and there will be less chance that their drivers will be stuck in freeway traffic since the distribution center is in town.
When AMart sends out drivers, they still have to obey all the rules of the road. They get no special treatment.
The only reason that their customers get better service is because AMart opened up a location in town. It is not because the city of BigTown did them any special favors.
---
Okay... so was that understandable?
ISPs are sometimes CDN providers. Basically, they server data storage space to anyone. Just like other CDN data storage businesses.
Netflix is not alone in being able to get server space. And getting that server space does not mean that they get any preferential data treatment. It only means that they are physically closer. They're in town.
What you're saying has been bordering on nonsensical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17252
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | kray28_ wrote: | Who benefits: The ISP, they get to charge Netflix and their subscribers for the same set of bits.
Who pays: You the consumer. Netflix will pass their extra cost down to you, and Comcast isn't lowering my bill anytime soon. Basically, it's an internet rate hike in disguise. |
I don't disagree with you. That's why I'm saying that arrangement, for all intents and purposes, essentially violates net neutrality. I'm not sure why "the net" would be limited to the last mile. |
It shouldn't be. Backbone providers and ISP's should treat all data equally. When they don't, and content providers are forced to pay extortion money to get service back up to an acceptable level, we lose.
If backbone providers hadn't throttled Netflix and Netflix still went ahead and made peering arrangements, that's perfectly fine, because it's part of a business plan to provider a better experience to customers and give them a selling point over Amazon/Hulu/whatever. No violation of net neutrality, because the data was always treated equally.
That's not what happened though. Service was fine, then it was strangled by backbone providers to get some extra cash. That's a violation of neutrality, and that's the problem. |
Well, we just have different definitions of net neutrality then. Net neutrality isn't about extortion in my book. You can violate net neutrality without extortion.
The ISP is treating the Netflix data delivery differently than the data from other video service providers.
And on top of that, they're charging me for it.
(Oh, and FWIW, Comcast never throttled Netflix. In fact, it appears Netflix may have throttled themselves). |
Dude, I don't know how many ways I can say this, NO IT IS NOT.
It's getting to you at the exact same priority as any other data you request (web pages, e-mail, whatever), it just has a shorter distance to travel. How can you not understand this after going in circles so many times??????? Between my examples and Reflexx's, I'd hope you'd understand the difference between latency (distance) and priority (which is what neutrality is about), but I guess not.
Last edited by DuncanIdaho on Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17252
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | kray28_ wrote: | Who benefits: The ISP, they get to charge Netflix and their subscribers for the same set of bits.
Who pays: You the consumer. Netflix will pass their extra cost down to you, and Comcast isn't lowering my bill anytime soon. Basically, it's an internet rate hike in disguise. |
I don't disagree with you. That's why I'm saying that arrangement, for all intents and purposes, essentially violates net neutrality. I'm not sure why "the net" would be limited to the last mile. |
It shouldn't be. Backbone providers and ISP's should treat all data equally. When they don't, and content providers are forced to pay extortion money to get service back up to an acceptable level, we lose.
If backbone providers hadn't throttled Netflix and Netflix still went ahead and made peering arrangements, that's perfectly fine, because it's part of a business plan to provider a better experience to customers and give them a selling point over Amazon/Hulu/whatever. No violation of net neutrality, because the data was always treated equally.
That's not what happened though. Service was fine, then it was strangled by backbone providers to get some extra cash. That's a violation of neutrality, and that's the problem. |
Well, we just have different definitions of net neutrality then. Net neutrality isn't about extortion in my book. You can violate net neutrality without extortion.
The ISP is treating the Netflix data delivery differently than the data from other video service providers.
And on top of that, they're charging me for it.
(Oh, and FWIW, Comcast never throttled Netflix. In fact, it appears Netflix may have throttled themselves). |
You don't really get to make up your own definitions on this, sorry. If you're going to self-define net neutrality, there's no point in trying to explain things any more. I thought we were getting somewhere but now I'm just getting a headache.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jonnybravo
Retired Number
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 30742
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | kray28_ wrote: | Who benefits: The ISP, they get to charge Netflix and their subscribers for the same set of bits.
Who pays: You the consumer. Netflix will pass their extra cost down to you, and Comcast isn't lowering my bill anytime soon. Basically, it's an internet rate hike in disguise. |
I don't disagree with you. That's why I'm saying that arrangement, for all intents and purposes, essentially violates net neutrality. I'm not sure why "the net" would be limited to the last mile. |
It shouldn't be. Backbone providers and ISP's should treat all data equally. When they don't, and content providers are forced to pay extortion money to get service back up to an acceptable level, we lose.
If backbone providers hadn't throttled Netflix and Netflix still went ahead and made peering arrangements, that's perfectly fine, because it's part of a business plan to provider a better experience to customers and give them a selling point over Amazon/Hulu/whatever. No violation of net neutrality, because the data was always treated equally.
That's not what happened though. Service was fine, then it was strangled by backbone providers to get some extra cash. That's a violation of neutrality, and that's the problem. |
Well, we just have different definitions of net neutrality then. Net neutrality isn't about extortion in my book. You can violate net neutrality without extortion.
The ISP is treating the Netflix data delivery differently than the data from other video service providers.
And on top of that, they're charging me for it.
(Oh, and FWIW, Comcast never throttled Netflix. In fact, it appears Netflix may have throttled themselves). |
You don't really get to make up your own definitions on this, sorry. If you're going to self-define net neutrality, there's no point in trying to explain things any more. I thought we were getting somewhere but now I'm just getting a headache. |
That's par dude, don't get sucked in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
