|
moller posted:This is from a few pages back, but the 'land line' that comes with a three-service package is invariably a VOIP box that you plug into your modem. VOIP using the bandwidth you're already paying for that mysteriously carries a steep monthly fee, sometimes comparable to the cost of actual POTS from a pole to your house. The two aren't equivalent in service either. Some friends had finally switched to VOIP for their wired security system as a replacement for the land line connection, only to find it went down for regular maintenance, often after hours, which is when they needed the system to be up. Long story short the only VOIP provider in the area did not provide consistent enough service to replace the hard line. Eventually the hard lines will be dead or cost-prohibitive, so now they're looking into cellular, but for right now their land line is much more reliable than any VOIP equivalent in their area. Also, I just read this http://www.pcworld.com/article/2460000/fcc-chairman-grills-verizon-over-data-throttling.html, for what it's worth.
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 20:02 |
|
|
Koch Brother astroturf group to Drudge Report readers: Net Neutrality is Marxist and a backdoor to full communism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Aren't they basically paying for Comcast to host Netflix's content to limit transmission times? Comcast and other ISPs (such as Time Warner in my area) don't hold back when throttling each others traffic. A direct IP connection between the two ISPs to servers over SSH was throttled within minutes of lots of HD football coverage (on the Comcast side anyways) last year dropping overall throughput from 3 MB/s steady state to less than 400 KB/s. Retrying the same connection but routing it through an instance in Amazon EC2 resulted in no drop of throughput. I'd have to call BS on the thought that they cant possibly conditionally route portions of their network to ensure the highest level of service to as many customers as possible. As it stands now if your connection goes through a congested route it's simply terrible -- how is this not a way to encourage customers to pay for priority access?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
JavaDoc posted:Comcast and other ISPs (such as Time Warner in my area) don't hold back when throttling each others traffic. A direct IP connection between the two ISPs to servers over SSH was throttled within minutes of lots of HD football coverage (on the Comcast side anyways) last year dropping overall throughput from 3 MB/s steady state to less than 400 KB/s. Retrying the same connection but routing it through an instance in Amazon EC2 resulted in no drop of throughput. How does this show that consumer ISPs are are throttling traffic from other consumer ISPs, again? Were you trying to stream off someone's else slingbox or something? Cuz what you probably had was the benefits of burst data transfer (i forget what the marketing names are) going for the first few minutes and then it dropped back to normal line conditions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:How does this show that consumer ISPs are are throttling traffic from other consumer ISPs, again? Were you trying to stream off someone's else slingbox or something? Cuz what you probably had was the benefits of burst data transfer (i forget what the marketing names are) going for the first few minutes and then it dropped back to normal line conditions. ISP A <- direct SSH connection -> ISP B (400kb/s throughput) ISP A <- SSH proxy through AWS or whatever -> ISP B (2mb/s throughput) Comcast and Time Warner probably peer via Level3 or Cogent or someone, and the idea that either L3 or Cogent are throttling traffic from the likes of TWC and Comcast is just laughable. Level3's VP of Content and Media just got done writing a drawn-out blog post about how TWC and Comcast are even deliberately harming their own customers by refusing to upgrade their equipment. Considering Level 3 (and other Tier 1 ISPs') entire reason for existing is providing a high-speed, no-bullshit backbone for the internet, it would be really odd if this was them. It would also be really odd for them to throttle two random American ISPs - L3's average port utilization is only 36%, for example, so it's not like they're exactly hurting for bandwidth or anything. Also no idea what "burst data transfer" you're talking about - that's not how TCP connections work unless a device in the middle gets overloaded and packets start hitting the buffer, in which case we're back to "lovely ISPs that don't upgrade their equipment". Sheep fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Aug 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Sheep posted:ISP A <- direct SSH connection -> ISP B (400kb/s throughput) The idea of Comcast and Time Warner deep packet inspecting to determine that the data coming in over Level 3 is from the other is even more absurd. For one thing it'd be hurting everyone's torrent speeds. AWS generally has better and multiple sources of connectivity to other networks. That's what you're experiencing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The idea of Comcast and Time Warner deep packet inspecting to determine that the data coming in over Level 3 is from the other is even more absurd. They're not doing deep packet inspection if they're just looking at the IP header, which is all you need to figure out where it's going, which is the crux of the issue - throttling competing ISPs' traffic but not that of Amazon, for example. Considering publicly assigned IP ranges aren't exactly a secret or anything it'd be comically easy for TWC to go "hey a packet for Comcast, low priority during football games!".
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Sheep posted:They're not doing deep packet inspection if they're just looking at the IP header, which is all you need to figure out where it's going, which is the crux of the issue - throttling competing ISPs' traffic but not that of Amazon, for example. Considering publicly assigned IP ranges aren't exactly a secret or anything it'd be comically easy for TWC to go "hey a packet for Comcast, low priority during football games!". Please explain the business sense in throttling peer to peer connections but only if they're with a specific company that Comcast is trying to buy/Time Warner is trying to get bought by. Reminder that Time Warner Cable and Comcast engage in 0 competition due to sharing absolutely no service areas. The only way to switch from Comcast to Time Warner is to sell your old house/break your lease and buy/rent a place somewhere else, usually dozens if not hundreds of miles away, to move between their territories. And this is again on top of the fact that the merer is all but guaranteed at this point. Fun fact: while waiting for you to reply, I arranged a set of hd video streaming with a friend on Time Warner a few states away. We trialed an unecnrypted stream, a SSH tunneled stream, and a stream through a VPN on Linode. Resutls were that in all cases I could get 1.5 megabytes per second from him (about the limit of his upload speed) and he could get 2 megabytes per second from me (about the limit of my upload speed on Comcast with my router's QoS set to ensure I'm not slowing my roommates). Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Aug 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The idea of Comcast and Time Warner deep packet inspecting to determine that the data coming in over Level 3 is from the other is even more absurd. For one thing it'd be hurting everyone's torrent speeds. Comcast has been caught deliberately throttling customers' downloads when it comes to torrenting so you might want to read up on the kind of fuckery they engage in. What you think to be absurd is pretty normal for them. They do the bare minimal amount of work they can and if something actually puts demand on their services they throttle or blackmail it (see: Netflix).
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Please explain the business sense in throttling peer to peer connections but only if they're with a specific company that Comcast is trying to buy/Time Warner is trying to get bought by. Throttle peer to peer connections and give priority to traffic to mainstream internet services as a way to avoid having to upgrade infrastructure. Whether the other ISP is a competitor or not isn't the issue at all, and I'm not even saying that this is a thing that actually happens, just that it is completely plausible and that there are quite a few reasons why they might engage in it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Comcast has been caught deliberately throttling customers' downloads when it comes to torrenting so you might want to read up on the kind of fuckery they engage in. What you think to be absurd is pretty normal for them. They do the bare minimal amount of work they can and if something actually puts demand on their services they throttle or blackmail it (see: Netflix). And they stopped doing it a while back as you can easily prove for yourself by going onto any torrent site. Also Comcast didn't throttle or blackmail Netflix, stop white knighting Reed "I don't want to have to do things the normal way" Hastings' boneheaded decision to try to muscle companies that can muscle him back. Sheep posted:Throttle peer to peer connections and give priority to traffic to mainstream internet services as a way to avoid having to upgrade infrastructure. Whether the other ISP is a competitor or not isn't the issue at all, and I'm not even saying that this is a thing that actually happens, just that it is completely plausible and that there are quite a few reasons why they might engage in it. But they're not throttling peer-to-peer connections, and furthermore if they were really after peer-to-peer connections they'd throttle between Comcast customers. Which they aren't doing. It's not completely plausible at all, you're just trying to accomplish something weird and due to the particular interplay of your own connection and the target connection you run into some sort of issue. As I said, I attempted to do similar things with someone else using the same provider pair, and got no slowdowns. People drawing completely spurious inferences is why it's impossible to say people at large can be informed consumers of internet usage - everything involves multiple separately run networks interacting in often bizarre ways.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
We're clearly hosed, no matter how often fishmech fishmechs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:We're clearly hosed, no matter how often fishmech fishmechs. Interesting how you didn't even attempt to give any logic, evidence, or argument this time. Typical for people who actually believe in this sort of stuff, it's like Satanic Panic for internet nerds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:We're clearly hosed, no matter how often fishmech fishmechs. Google will arrive in your city sometime in the 2030's. Buck up friend, be sure to pay Comcast timely or their innovation will be lacking in punch!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Interesting how you didn't even attempt to give any logic, evidence, or argument this time. Typical for people who actually believe in this sort of stuff, it's like Satanic Panic for internet nerds. Believe in this sort of stuff? Dude, it's legislature, not a seance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:Believe in this sort of stuff? Dude, it's legislature, not a seance. What the hell does this mean.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:Believe in this sort of stuff? Dude, it's legislature, not a seance. Then you should be able to show it, for once. But you can't because it isn't there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Then you should be able to show it, for once. I have zero desire to prove to you how astronomically awful this decision would be, the evidence is everywhere. By now if you don't get it, that's on you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:I have zero desire to prove to you how astronomically awful this decision would be, the evidence is everywhere. By now if you don't get it, that's on you. Well, I'm convinced!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
If they ban municipalities right to make ISPs  That's when were hosed for a good long time until the market correction which should happen, definitely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:I have zero desire to prove to you how astronomically awful this decision would be, the evidence is everywhere. By now if you don't get it, that's on you. You have zero desire because you can't even name a decision or law. Again: you're doing Internet Satanic Panic. You can't even come up with some made up justification for your amorphous fear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You have zero desire because you can't even name a decision or law. Yeah, they just don't exist. Darn. Again: evidence is aplenty, but I've read your posts and have zero desire to give you something to obsessively pick apart. 99% of the comments to the FCC are in support of Net Neutrality. Why don't you explain why the upcoming decision is nothing to worry about?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:Yeah, they just don't exist. Darn. Again: evidence is aplenty, but I've read your posts and have zero desire to give you something to obsessively pick apart. Do you Uber
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:Yeah, they just don't exist. Darn. Again: evidence is aplenty, but I've read your posts and have zero desire to give you something to obsessively pick apart. Name the decisions you disagree with. Name the laws you don't like. Name the "upcoming decision" and why you're against it. I'm sorry that you prefer to deal in opinions instead of facts, but for the past few posts you've just said "thing is bad!!" without even describing Thing. AT least state what you think is true for once, instead of getting angry that if it's wrong you will be told so. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:Yeah, they just don't exist. Darn. Again: evidence is aplenty, but I've read your posts and have zero desire to give you something to obsessively pick apart. Hah, you're not even dancing around providing a concrete position to argue, you're outright refusing to give one because you might be proven wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Koch Brother astroturf group to Drudge Report readers: Net Neutrality is Marxist and a backdoor to full communism. "Compare Net Neutrality to Marxism!" Nope. No cunning trickery here. Just literally compare the two as similar entities. quote:Kerpen suggests that reclassifying the internet as a public utility is the 'first step in the fight to destroy American capitalism altogether' quote:A mysterious conservative group with strong ties to the Koch brothers has been bombarding inboxes with emails filled with disinformation and fearmongering in an attempt to start a "grassroots" campaign to kill net neutrality
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
Sheep posted:Level3's VP of Content and Media just got done writing a drawn-out blog post about how TWC and Comcast are even deliberately harming their own customers by refusing to upgrade their equipment. My understanding is that currently they have settlement free peering, and the blog posts coming out of Level 3 have been suggesting that the residential ISPs should be paying them to increase the pipes to ease congestion. The residential ISPs on the other hand are saying that considering that the excess is traffic is coming from Level 3, it is Level 3 that should pay them, pointing to Level 3's own stance against Cogent: http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/level-3s-selective-amnesia-on-peering I think they are both babies and they should both agree to relieve the congestion on a settlement free basis, but, you know, capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
About reclassifying internet as utility, is that something that's actually on the cards, or are telecoms just freaking out and running disinformation campaigns preemptively?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
Forgall posted:About reclassifying internet as utility, is that something that's actually on the cards, or are telecoms just freaking out and running disinformation campaigns preemptively? It's not in the cards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
The FCC will officially vote next month on the proposed rule changes regarding Net Neutrality. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/02/fcc-net-neutrality-feb-vote_n_6408854.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
edit - lost the current one and posted something from last year
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
More reports are coming out that the FCC will move to reclassify ISPs as utilities. This may also include companies that offer wireless data services. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/t...v=top-news&_r=0
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Wheeler officially came out today and confirmed that the FCC will move to reclassify ISPs under common carrier under Title II, as well as wireless data networks. http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/4/7977569/its-official-the-fcc-will-seek-to-reclassify-the-internet-as-a-utility
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Wheeler officially came out today and confirmed that the FCC will move to reclassify ISPs under common carrier under Title II, as well as wireless data networks. That's...that's good?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Duke Igthorn posted:That's...that's good? It's actually pretty insanely good
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
How much money does Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, et al stand to lose? And how much of a fuss will we hear about this from politicians proclaiming this literally the worst thing Obama has ever done?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:It's actually pretty insanely good but it's so hard to believe
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Wheeler officially came out today and confirmed that the FCC will move to reclassify ISPs under common carrier under Title II, as well as wireless data networks. I honestly did not expect the wireless part and I'm hoping that the telecomms didn't either. What're the odds these proposed changes fail to pass? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
935 posted:How much money does Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, et al stand to lose? And how much of a fuss will we hear about this from politicians proclaiming this literally the worst thing Obama has ever done? Verizon stands to lose a bit, as they ceased their fiber expansion to prevent taking buisness from their wireless division.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 20:02 |
|
|
935 posted:How much money does Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, et al stand to lose? And how much of a fuss will we hear about this from politicians proclaiming this literally the worst thing Obama has ever done? The hell of it is most of them don't lose anything. They basically might lose fractions of a percent of profit over the next like decade, other than Verizon who might lose a whole percent
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 22:19
|
|