|
Nintendo Kid posted:if it had been built exactly as intended then the countryside woulda had a whole bunch of slowass internet infrastructure and even worse cell coverage
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
Sniep posted:yeah turns out that doesnt work really well apparently it works ok. its probably better than vdsl over ancient pots lines
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:so really not any different than today precisely
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:precisely glad the free market delivers 20 years late
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
DNova posted:remember when the internet wasn't poo poo
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:apparently it works ok. its probably better than vdsl over ancient pots lines ham radio guys got extremely angry over BPL
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
FiOS claims to not be engaging in network fuckery but when I upload poo poo to an S3 bucket directly it goes at maybe 20 kb/sec versus when I VPN through a Linode instance in my city it goes at full wire rate that's my net neutrality story
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
I still haven't heard any compelling reason why we needed any of this poo poo
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Hed posted:I still haven't heard any compelling reason why we needed any of this poo poo because you might need gigabit internet maybe in 20 years
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Hed posted:I still haven't heard any compelling reason why we needed any of this poo poo because google said so and because lots of pirates don't want to get throttled
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:oh so they're going to prevent stuff that has never happened from happening? cause it sounds like they're trying to classify legitimate peering arrangements like the Netflix thing as bad which would be hilariously stupid. so its a good thing they're not doing that. long story: shagger please stick to coding arguments Jimmy Carter posted:FiOS claims to not be engaging in network fuckery but when I upload poo poo to an S3 bucket directly it goes at maybe 20 kb/sec versus when I VPN through a Linode instance in my city it goes at full wire rate there's a good chance that you're hitting a congested peering path taht the linode instance is routing around. the internet is nothing more than a network of handshakes and duct tape.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:6mbps adsl with 8ms ping or uncapped cable was decent back in 2001 no no I I meant what's on the internet e.g. you're posts
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Jimmy Carter posted:FiOS claims to not be engaging in network fuckery but when I upload poo poo to an S3 bucket directly it goes at maybe 20 kb/sec versus when I VPN through a Linode instance in my city it goes at full wire rate this happened to the lovely ISP in NZ that used the cheapest/worst transit provider eg. a tracert from NZ to US somehow bounces through asia and japan before getting to the US but since they have unbundled line people just change to a different ISP with better upstream provider
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:iirc all this poo poo started when level3 underbid comcast for the cdn contract with netflix, which meant that comcast would have had to start paying level3 for the peering disparity as well as upgrade their peering links, and in response comcast throttled netflix for ~1month. and then shtf no, level 3 would have had to start paying comcast if they wanted the peering upgraded, comcast was never on the hook for paying peering charges. side that pushes more traffic pays. and there was no throttling at comcast, just the natural congestion. verizon is the one that reputedly actually throttled.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
DNova posted:no no I I meant what's on the internet e.g. you're posts  also good news shaggar seems like the republicans got your back US Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) today filed legislation to overturn the municipal broadband decision the Federal Communications Commission made earlier in the day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:no, level 3 would have had to start paying comcast if they wanted the peering upgraded, comcast was never on the hook for paying peering charges. side that pushes more traffic pays. no sir, downloader pays in all the peering agreements with transit providers i've seen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:no, level 3 would have had to start paying comcast if they wanted the peering upgraded, comcast was never on the hook for paying peering charges. side that pushes more traffic pays. if only there's another ISP that you can switch to that routed differently bypassing the congestion
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:iirc all this poo poo started when level3 underbid comcast for the cdn contract with netflix, which meant that comcast would have had to start paying level3 for the peering disparity as well as upgrade their peering links, and in response comcast throttled netflix for ~1month. and then shtf level3 has always been poo poo and they oversell their networks and get all confused when people avoid them. they put out some bullshit a while back where they were all "look we have all this capacity and Comcast wont use it!!!" when the reality is Comcast didn't want to use them because they were less reliable and more expensive than other routes. that's how that poo poo works. then Netflix realized their original mistake and peered directly with Comcast which means more network capacity for all of comcasts customers (after offloading Netflix to their own pipes) and better service for Comcast's Netflix users. and the only people who had to pay for it were the people using Netflix (although not really since rates didn't increase). litterrallly everyone won that one and its the #1 thing people talk about when they talk about "fast lanes". its how this stuff should work and its completely equitable and banning it would be really really stupid. but who knows if that's actually what the fcc means by banning fast lanes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:"why spend money on upgrading when we can just save money on our backhaul" I'm in NYC there's a stupid amount of fiber here therefore no excuse
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:whoa things can get congested if it's never upgraded??? in the case of level3s Netflix traffic over Comcast, level3 was sending something like 6 times the amount of traffic Comcast was. that's why Comcast asked them to pay up. there was no reason for Comcast to upgrade anything since it would only benefit level3 and not Comcast or Comcast customers. it was up to level3 to make those network improvements and they would have had to charge Netflix more to do it so Netflix finally gave up and did what they should have done originally which is peer directly to Comcast. its cheaper for everyone in the long run and it doesn't penalize Comcast users who don't use Netflix. in the end network upgrades were performed by the party who required network upgrades and customers on both sides received better service than before.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:level3 went way way over their peering argreement with Comcast. Comcast told them to pay up and level3 made a stink about it in the press but they paid anyways cause that's how contracts work. you're contradicting yourself here. which is it? is level3 paying comcast or is comcast paying level3? and here in san francisco, Level3 has been the most reliable transit in the area compared to att, verizon, time warner, ntt, cogent, zayo. where are you getting your information from?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:you're contradicting yourself here. which is it? is level3 paying comcast or is comcast paying level3? currently it's neither, netflix stopped being dumb, the traffic went back to equal enough to not pay, and they both just pay for their side's upkeep
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
bay area resident thinks that the bay area is representative of the world, news at 11
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
level3 is the least reliable transit I've ever used that wasn't an ilec. and im not contradicting myself. Comcast didn't want to send any traffic over level3 because the income loss from increasing parity with level3 wasn't worthwhile when they could just send that traffic somewhere else for less. this is before the Netflix/Comcast peering arrangement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
lol our ilec was Verizon and the maine PUC kicked them out of the state for wanting to roll out fios and then allowed Verizon to sell the old poo poo copper to a bankrupt company. way to go utility regulators!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:bay area resident thinks that the bay area is representative of the world, news at 11 no, but a major metro does represent network connectivity with representation from tier 1 transit providers. Shaggar posted:level3 is the least reliable transit I've ever used that wasn't an ilec. comcast is the eu isp - they don't "send traffic." your premise is fla- gently caress getting shaggar'd and fishmech'd.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:for those like danza that don't understand this, the way peering works is that if you generally send the same amount of traffic both ways you pay to keep up your end and if you both want to expand the peer you both pay to upgrade your end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:or if fios was unbundled then you can just get another ISP using the same fios line with less congestion on the backend it's also up to the person selling connectivity on netflix's side to provide the actual access, friend.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
i can't stay mad at ATT because they put in 4g in oso, wash, after that landslide happened 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
the Netflix customers want that traffic. not all Comcast customers are Netflix customers and it would be wrong of Comcast to charge all Comcast customers for the usage of just the Netflix customers. the final result of all of this is that the Netflix customers who wanted the upgrades got the upgrades and they(through Netflix) paid for them. This is correct and fair. if fios was unbundled you'd be able to get service through a 4th tier network like earthlink and you would suffer worse congestion from their garbage networks. TWC customers have been able to get unbundled service ever since the TWC/AOL merger and it didn't do anything because the backhaul is not the problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
lazydog posted:verizon seems to be taking it well http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet Ah, Verizon. Respected and well liked. Just like Mediacom and Comcast, their words are sure to persuade their loyal customers
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
Hed posted:I still haven't heard any compelling reason why we needed any of this poo poo shaggar says it's for pirates but there are lots of legit reasons to have lots of bandwidth: remote desktop, online backup like backblaze, file syncing like dropbox, etc
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:it's also up to the person selling connectivity on netflix's side to provide the actual access, friend. it's just lol to see people having to VPN out of their lovely ISP to get much better speed
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
lol@ equal pairing agreement with an end user isp, aka "use your bandwith to serve answers to my requests, and pay me for the privilege"
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
mods rename thread to shaggar v fishmech
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:true, but in cases like people getting much improved speed when they VPN out of their isp means there are most likely some uncongested peering points out there that customers can get to if there's a choice in switching ISP that's a thing that's up to the massive bandwidth pushing on the other end signing deals with more other companies or signing a deal with the isp itself, tbh when you push 35% of a continent's bandwidth at peak times like netflix, going for a single transit network for most of your traffic is just plain dumb.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
pagancow posted:Not clear if this ruling disallows private companies from sticking a CDN directly on an ISP's network and pay for it. the isps should be offering it for free since it saves them money, but they want to save money and be paid for it too because monopoly
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
suffix posted:the isps should be offering it for free since it saves them money, but they want to save money and be paid for it too because monopoly no, they should charge the normal rates for rackspace and power like they do now
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:if fios was unbundled you'd be able to get service through a 4th tier network like earthlink and you would suffer worse congestion from their garbage networks. check out sonic.net since they are one of the better unbundled provider with uncapped/linespeed adsl2+ through att's unbundled line, they even include unlimited national calls with free caller id and whatnot
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
DaNzA posted:or if fios was unbundled then you can just get another ISP using the same fios line with less congestion on the backend this is a good way to ensure that no ISP ever invests in fiber
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:38
|
|
