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

Isaac Levy ike at lesmuug.org
Sat Nov 1 21:49:31 EDT 2008

On Nov 1, 2008, at 9:16 PM, Alex Pilosov wrote:

> 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.


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?

>>> 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.

Hrm... Interesting...

>>>> - 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.

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

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?

>> 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'.

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.

>> - 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.

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.

>> 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.

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...

As a customer here, I don't want to know insane things about your  
network, do I?  (just for people on list, I'm not a customer of  
Pilosoft but Alex is being a VERY good sport to go through this!)

>>>> 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.

Right- but per Miles' post, if everybody is sending multicast, (let  
alone just the TV shows), that's a *lot* of data...

>>>>> 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.

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.

Neither of these ideas are sane to me, am I getting your meaning  


More information about the talk mailing list