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

[Alex Pilosov]

On Sat, 1 Nov 2008, Isaac Levy wrote:

> > Crazy talk. Regulation is only necessary in case of monopolies. In
> > every other case, vote with your wallet. If noone provides service
> > that you want, start providing it.
> >
> > Then again, you *may* be talking about regulation of the last mile
> > monopolies, in which case, I agree.
> 
> Oh no- dude- we're on the same page here.
> 
> Example: I a want 100mbps internet drop at my house from say, Pilosoft.
> My budget is, Maximum, $100/mo.
> 
> I'm sure Alex would gladly provide it, if his upstream was cheaper/
> faster/etc and if Verizon could drop the right line.
> 
> I mean, if you could get it for me, you'd sell it- right?
Yes, see above, regulation of last mile monopolies.

> > Last mile is a monopoly, that's why. IP transit *is* getting very
> > cheap very fast - we went from 1000$/mbit about 8 years ago to
> > 10-15$/mbit today, and we'll go to mid-teens soon.
> 
> Gah.  So it is getting faster!  Gee, I wish my DSL provider told me (and
> dropped my rates, or improved my speed a bit)!
> 
> (sidenote- can I run a patch cable from Williamsburg downtown to the
> Pilosoft NOC?  Er, better, some fiber...  I'll go dig in my closet for
> some... ;)
With that budget, no. However, if you want to get more people together, 
some opportunities like wireless stuff become possible, of course, not for 
100$/month.

> >> - Promote the advancement of networking technology - Promote
> >> transparency of infrastructure - Keep ISP's blind to users data, just
> >> focus on throughput
> > <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.

> No- I've never tested a pilosoft DSL line, but:
> 
> - 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'.

> - with colo pipes, (as a cabinet and cage consumer- with IP/Net
> connectivity from the facility), It's hard to push more than 60mb on a
> 100mb pipe- even to servers a few cabinets away.  Understandable, but
> worth mention.
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.

> I know how the internet works- I know how networks perform- I'm just fed
> up with all the soft-metrics.
You are the one tossing them around. There are better ways to measure
things, you should use them. (latency, packet loss, etc).

> >> - Help people realize the costs of the internet, discouraging 'the
> >> internet is free' (cost) mentality
> > That'd help. Clearly, it'd get rid of tards who think "unlimited"  
> > means dedicated as in "I can use 100% of my bandwidth 24x7 and not pay
> > extra". I'm very much in favor of carriers placing GB caps and
> > charging per GB - it is similar to abuse of dialup back in the day by
> > staying connected 24x7. Unlimited does not mean dedicated.
> 
> Well, from a reality perspective on the network side- I agree with you.
> 
> However, the market has gone to selling different expectations- and 24x7
> network saturation is something I tend to find ways to regularly do...  
> I think others on this list do too.
Yes, exactly which is why I bring it up. Smart customers should know
better. But you (plural) don't. Yet you demand more knowledge about my
networks - like that's gonna help you figure out what's TCP window size 
and what does it have to do with performance.

> >> And how do the big backbone providers, who have to run all of that
> >> multicast, (it has to flow somewhere, right?), how do they get
> >> compensated to maintain network load?
> > Same as every other traffic?
> 
> 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.

> >>> Currently cable companies are switching all their fiber to IP.  
> >>> They will deliver television to the set-top boxes over multicast IP.  
> >>> but they'll probably not let these IP packets leak out of their
> >>> DRMbox. They might.  They will DEFINITELY reserve the right to be
> >>> multicast sources for themselves so they can sell your eyeballs to
> >>> others, and keep your choices of TV stations tied to your choice of
> >>> ISP.
> >>
> >> Yuck.  This is exactly the kind of Content+Infrastructure nightmare I
> >> loathe.
> > Why? Nothing's wrong with that. If you had a *choice* of your cable
> > carriers, that wouldn't be a problem.
> 
> 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.


-alex