[nycbug-talk] nyetwork neutrality, rehashed (was: some other crap)

[Alex Pilosov]

On Sat, 1 Nov 2008, Isaac Levy wrote:

> Now here's the problem- as an end user of the internet, and a 'colo
> consumer', my only contact, the only people I pay and deal with at this
> scale, is 'layer 3' service providers...
> 
> So from my seat, aside from Legislation, what can a small business, or
> small fry like me, do to improve things?
As colo customer, you have very very very wide choice of providers, make
it a smart one.

> >>> <snip> In case of monopolies, yes, otherwise, hell no. I built my
> >>> network, I paid for it, keep your hands offa it.
> >>
> >> Huh?  As an end user of a 'Layer 3' service, this still may suck for
> >> me. Why should I accept a 'Layer 3' company mucking with my packets?
> > Why shouldn't you? Its their network, not yours. You don't own it, you
> > are just a customer. If you don't like it, vote with your wallet and
> > buy from someone else.
> 
> Ok- but if I take that for my home/office internet, I have only a
> handful options where I'm at: verizon, speakeasy, comcast, roadrunner,
> pilosoft, bway.net
That's quite wide choice. There are a lot more companies like
bway/pilosoft, look on dslreports for more.

> I mean, realistically, what am I supposed to do- change my DSL every
> time I want to use my network connection in some way my ISP doesn't
> allow for?
Yes.

> >> - Even 'speed-tests', from a given vendor, are always slower than the
> >> sold-as speed- even if the location is right on top of the CO
> > Duh, because most speed-tests are
> >
> > a) on some ghetto network so they don't pay much for free speedtests
> > b) java based and slow as hell
> > c) ran by people who don't understand what tcp window size either
> >
> > The only meaningful speed test is downloading from your ISP's site.
> > Everything else is 'best effort'.
> 
> Right- and I'm saying that these speeds never meet advertised
> expectations. It's like buying a dozen eggs and 2 to 5 of them are
> consistently broken.
Which speeds? I'm saying tools you measure are broken, and the speeds are
likely to be correct. It's like buying a dozen eggs and saying they are
broken cause your egg-tester (made out of duct tape) says so.

> > I have to say, in the above case, it is definitely a problem between
> > chair and keyboard. *you* need to track down what is the problem - is
> > it insufficient buffers, tcp window size, duplex issues, etc, and not
> > blame carrier. Just saying "omg im getting 60mbit" is silly.
> 
> /sigh Alex, next time I'm in the position to monopolize a network during
> a deployment, I promise I'll load up nettestd on some hosts document a
> comprehensive test- just for you.
>
> Then I'll be fine if you explain to me what type of matter actually is
> between my chair and keyboard.
You either measure it and prove it or don't post accusations that its
provider's fault, don't bring it up unless you can back it up. 


> Alex, your talking to a list who understand things like TCP window size-
> but I'm not attacking you (personally or plurally) about stuff like
> that.
> 
> I'm talking more about things like blocked ports, QoS rules which affect
> the customer, weather or not the ISP will keep/sell any metrics/ info
> about my line to 3rd parties, etc...
That all is fairly well known already, and documented. Particularly 
privacy policy is in your contract.

> >> No- I meant that with regard to the Over-Subscribe problem,
> >> (effectively DDOS'ing yourself to oblivion), the multicast hast go
> >> get filtered at some point- yet it *all* flows back up at the top?
> > Why? I don't get it. The point of multicast is that its sent only once
> > at the top.
> 
> Right- but per Miles' post, if everybody is sending multicast, (let
> alone just the TV shows), that's a *lot* of data...
But it's only sent ONCE.

> >> Are you joking?  I'd need to change internet carriers if I wanted to
> >> watch a different TV show?
> > Yes, pretty much. If your carrier (say, time warner) bundles access to
> > Springer with your interwebs access, and (say, cablevision) bundless
> > access to Geraldo, what's wrong with that? You can watch anything
> > *else* that you like from the interwebs, on the "best effort" packet
> > delivery basis. Youtube seems to work just dandy here, after all.
> 
> Dude- if I read you right, I think that's insane.  It either presupposes
> that piracy is just the way to bypass this- (and that youtube is
> quality?), or you are saying that I change the wires coming into my
> apartment to watch a different show.
No, changing your carrier, not the wires. Wires are a natural monopoly. 
What flows on them shouldn't.

> Neither of these ideas are sane to me, am I getting your meaning
> correctly?
Something like that.