I don't really care how "slow" my internet access is... Hulu streaming works at 500kbps, and I can't find any broadband providers that offer service speeds lower than that in the past decades. Just give me CHEAP!!!
I don't want to pay $65/mo to get bottom-tier FIOS speeds that I won't use. Yet FIOS deployment means I can't get cheap Verizon DSL anymore.
I don't want my cable company to eliminate their bottom tier, upgrading everyone to 15Mbps and doubling the monthly price. What does my mother need with 15Mbps internet access to read her e-mail? I know she'd rather have her $20/month back.
Where are all the cheap broadband packages going? I just checked due to another commenter, and see that Time Warner (not in my area) offers 2/1Mbps service for $15/mo... That would be pretty good, except they're about to get bought by Comcast, which doesn't offer anything below 3/1Mbps for $40/mo.
Screw your HighDef streaming video... Where's my entry-level internet service? When CELLULAR in cheaper, something has gone horribly wrong.
Who the hell gets high speed Internet for $20/mo? Most of us are stuck with cable, which costs far more than that. [...] So I have two choices - Time Warner, or EarthLink - which just resells...Time Warner.
I see visiting their site, that Time Warner is offering me their internet service "Everyday Low Price (up to 2Mbps) for $14.99/mo." That would be LESS than "$20/mo". That's not a 2-year contract or similar, either, that's actually what they charge.
Who the hell gets high speed Internet for $20/mo? Most of us are stuck with cable, which costs far more than that.
My cable internet service has been $20-30 over the past 10 years with 3 different cable companies. Time Warner was one of them, and charged $20 most of the time I was subscribed.
The software will be there. Google already requires Android devices be able to decode WebM, and I would expect them to update that to include VP9/Opus sometime in the future. Not to mention they provide a built-in media player to handle the formats.
Cogent isn't dumping data onto Comcasts network, Comcast's customers are *requesting* that data - that data is part of why they're paying Comcast in the first place.
"Dumping" doesn't refer to data transfer. It specifically refers to transferring it to the nearest peering point where the peer's backbone has to carry it across the country to the end-user, rather than transferring the data over your own backbone to the peering point closest to the customer.
Netflix should be left out of it.
And what makes you say they weren't?
If Netflix doesn't like the result they can change ISPs
There's so much spin and misinformation in above post.
On the contrary, you just have no understanding of the subject.
When Netflix/Cogent sends that data which you requested to your ISP, calling that transmission "dumping" is clearly 1. untrue and 2. BS.
"Dumping" doesn't refer to data transfer. It specifically refers to transferring it to the nearest peering point where the peer's backbone has to carry it across the country to the end-user, rather than transferring the data over your own backbone to the peering point closest to the customer.
Almost from day one the internet was based on a user-pays model. ISPs A and B both have a lot of customers who want stuff from users on the other ISP. Data flows back and forth
It was never just "user-pays". The provider has always had to pay as well. I don't know where you got that from. In fact, things were symmetric in the early days, so "user-pays" wouldn't even make sense.
charge the content providers as well, for the exact same data transfer they are already charging their users for
It's not as simple as "data transfer" where peering agreements are involved. The fees you pay aren't there to allow Cogent to dump tons of data on one link of your ISP, forcing them to carry it on their backbone across the country to the end user there, rather than upgrading their own backbone to handle the traffic properly. If you want your ISP to just tolerate all the bad behavior of misbehaving peers, you'll quickly find your fees astronomical, as your ISP gets horribly taken advantage of, and ends up acting as a backbone for others.
Netflix offered them an optimized caching system so that instead of having to upgrade their systems to handle the load their customers demanded, as well as paying for the data itself, instead they could simply pay to transfer a single instance make all the free copies they wanted, saving them a bundle.
All other CDNs pay substantial amounts of money for what Netflix is telling ISPs they should be given for "free". Netflix calling it "free" is pure double-speak. They're the ones trying to get free space, electricity, and tons of bandwidth for their upstart CDN.
But if it's a battle between ISPs, why are they dragging Netflix into it?
That's exactly what they're doing. As Cogent dumps more traffic on them, they're just not upgrading the peering points, so Cogent customers see congestion and slowdowns going to/from other ISPs. Netflix is just the biggest customer, the one end users will notice, and Cogent and others like to spin it as a net-neutrality / conflict of interest type story to spin-up outrage, since that's cheaper than actually dealing with the issue, some others don't understand and misrepresent the issue, while some are intentionally promulgating the myth to serve their own purposes. Which are you?
Unless they get really serious about pushing VP9 in hardware and very soon, history will repeat itself with HEVC/VP9.
VP8 didn't have a chance, because H.264 was long established and popular YEARS before VP8/WebM was even released. H.264 had 7 years of no competition, so yeah, it caught on, and VP8 didn't.
This time, though, VP9 was released head-to-head with H.265. Things could be very different. While companies start coming up with H.265 decoders, VP9 will be right there next to it, completely free to implement without paying the fees they do for h.265, and with a big company like Google encouraging them, and even offering to help.
Google, and On2 before them, have always encouraged development of hardware VPx decoders. And VP9 is no exception:
Like that design, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see most H.265 chips just incidentally also supporting VP9 on equal footing. After all, why NOT provide both, when the latter is free?
There's no guarantee that VP9 will catch on, just as there's no guarantee that anybody will use H.265... it might get basically passed-over by everyone, like H.263 did... but this time around, VP9 has a solid chance to actually compete, rather than being too late to the party.
If Comcast were Exxon They'd be receiving money from Sears when I drove my car to the mall.
In this case, Sears intentionally blocked off their parking lots, forcing customers to drive over and park on long stretches of Exxon's roads... And Sears' solution to this is to ALLOW Exxon to host a free Sears kiosk in all their gas stations...
The analogy is straining... but that's about right.
Why do people accept this?
Because Netflix's ISP (Cogent) is a douche bag of the highest order, who ALWAYS claims to be the innocent party in peering disputes, while they're almost always massively in-the-wrong, behaving unconscionably, and refusing to either admit to or remedy the problem they're causing.
Without in-depth details about the exact details of the Netflix disputes between Cogent and Comcast, Verizon, and others, I'm going to assume Cogent are acting like pricks, as usual, and give the other ISPs every benefit of the doubt.
Amazon is going to lose money on this deal. No one wants **another** box....
You clearly have no idea how many STBs are out there.
Even if you assume there's no overlap between xbox/playstation customers (unlikely) and that they all use their game consoles to stream tv/movies, and throw in the rounding error that is all the other STBs from Apple to Roku and Chromecast, you're still only talking about 25% of the US, at best.
So, if we just assume Amazon isn't even interested in existing STB owners to buy their box/service, they've still got an open market of 75% of the US. I think that'll be a big enough for them.
Not at all. It could easily be traffic being dumped onto your backbone by a badly behaving peer. There is no means to prevent it.
or its through a peering arrangement that you already find beneficial (or it wouldn't exist).
Not "find", but "found". As in, past-tense.
Besides, these are just circular arguments, anyway. You're continually assuming some unlisted benefit, that may or very well *MAY NOT* be there. There are many cases in which what you said doesn't remotely hold true.
I remember reading that Netflix uses mostly uncompressed streams to TVs and TV like devices
There's no such thing as uncompressed video streaming. Uncompressed video is astronomically large, and impossible to stream over any internet connection you've ever seen.
They offer direct interconnects to Netflix's CDN for free, free peering at major internet exchange points, and free, Netflix-managed hardware caches to ISPs to avoid duplicate network traffic
It's "free" only in 1984 new-speak...
ISP: "You mean I get to carry your traffic, perhaps much of it actually going to customers of other ISPs, on my network backbone for you, for FREE? And if I don't like that, I can provide you electricity and rack space in my ultra-expensive datacenter, where other CDNs pay to get space, and you don't give me dime for it? What a deal!"
Those "free" services Netflix is giving out to ISPs, are actually expensive ISP services that Netflix is hoping to TAKE, for FREEEEEEE!
Netflix has made the offer available to setup CDN servers in the local providers facilities to ease the BW usage on their peers. Google uses this; but Verizon, Time Warner, and Comcast do not, who then whine about the BW use.
I'm sure ISPs are chomping at the bit for the privileged of giving Netflix free electricity and rack space in their ultra-expensive and valuable data centers... Something that other CDNs (like Akami) PAY FOR, and would object to Netflix getting for free.
Yeah, but it's not like Netflix is using a free service. They are paying for that bandwidth. I assume they are paying quite a bit. More importantly, someone is selling it to them.
Right, Cogent is the one who screwed-up here, dumping an unbalanced load of (what happens to be Netflix) traffic on (say: Verizon), and Cogent neither being willing to accept other traffic to balance the peering, nor paying (Verizon) for the imbalance.
If Netflix was distributing its' traffic over several different Tier-1 providers, they wouldn't be having as big of a problem with ISPs. And Netflix is being dishonest in promoting their "free" OpenConnect devices to ISPs to reduce their network traffic. Netflix knows full well that ISPs hosting the device in their data centers costs them money, and is something that other service (like Akami) have to PAY FOR the privilege of.
I'm not terribly critical of Netflix, but they are a slightly bad-actor in all of this, and are always positioning themselves as the innocent and persecuted victim.
If the ISP cannot transfer me the traffic that I am paying them to transfer me, then they need to upgrade their circuits.
It's not that simple. Peering arrangements are private contracts that don't have anything to do with end users. And if you demand your ISP gives their peering partners anything they want, the peers will take massive advantage, and dump tons of their own traffic on your ISP's links, to get delivered across the country by them. When that happens, they won't be charging you a few percent more, they'll be charging you an order of magnitude more money, as your dumb sap of an ISP gets stuck delivering every other ISP's internet traffic for FREE.
That's a HORRIBLE way to measure. Anybody might live right on the border-line of a defined river-basin, and if they get their water 100ft to the west, instead of 500 miles to the east, they might be crossing those lines, and count as "importers" by your count.
The same "word" is repeated four or five times on each line, with only one different word appearing on the line, often differing from the repeated word by only one "letter",
1) Da na na na na na na na na na na BATMAN!
2) Fuck the fucking fuckers...
3) Random opinionated people on/. are always more knowledgeable than experts in the subject.
"Getting too much rainfall to technically be a desert" is meaningless pedantry - because desert or not, it doesn't get enough water to sustain it's population.
Almost no densely populated city can supply all it's water needs from the rainfall on the city's land-mass, even if they did have the infrastructure to capture everything going through the storm drains. Seattle may be an exception... But by you impossible standards, New York is a desert, Boston is a desert, etc.
BTW, how far away is it legal to pull water from? How about all those cities hundreds of miles from the Great Lakes, at what point are they too far away, and must be labeled as "importing" their water?
Slashdot Mirror
And it's not the point of this thread, so nobody here cares.
"Broadband" means multiple signal on the same wire. It's the opposite of baseband, like ethernet.
The FCC might just as well define "Basic Broadband" as "a box of cookies"... It's just that stupid.
I don't really care how "slow" my internet access is... Hulu streaming works at 500kbps, and I can't find any broadband providers that offer service speeds lower than that in the past decades. Just give me CHEAP!!!
I don't want to pay $65/mo to get bottom-tier FIOS speeds that I won't use. Yet FIOS deployment means I can't get cheap Verizon DSL anymore.
I don't want my cable company to eliminate their bottom tier, upgrading everyone to 15Mbps and doubling the monthly price. What does my mother need with 15Mbps internet access to read her e-mail? I know she'd rather have her $20/month back.
Where are all the cheap broadband packages going? I just checked due to another commenter, and see that Time Warner (not in my area) offers 2/1Mbps service for $15/mo... That would be pretty good, except they're about to get bought by Comcast, which doesn't offer anything below 3/1Mbps for $40/mo.
Screw your HighDef streaming video... Where's my entry-level internet service? When CELLULAR in cheaper, something has gone horribly wrong.
I see visiting their site, that Time Warner is offering me their internet service "Everyday Low Price (up to 2Mbps) for $14.99/mo." That would be LESS than "$20/mo". That's not a 2-year contract or similar, either, that's actually what they charge.
My cable internet service has been $20-30 over the past 10 years with 3 different cable companies. Time Warner was one of them, and charged $20 most of the time I was subscribed.
The software will be there. Google already requires Android devices be able to decode WebM, and I would expect them to update that to include VP9/Opus sometime in the future. Not to mention they provide a built-in media player to handle the formats.
"Dumping" doesn't refer to data transfer. It specifically refers to transferring it to the nearest peering point where the peer's backbone has to carry it across the country to the end-user, rather than transferring the data over your own backbone to the peering point closest to the customer.
And what makes you say they weren't?
Sounds like they did.
On the contrary, you just have no understanding of the subject.
"Dumping" doesn't refer to data transfer. It specifically refers to transferring it to the nearest peering point where the peer's backbone has to carry it across the country to the end-user, rather than transferring the data over your own backbone to the peering point closest to the customer.
It was never just "user-pays". The provider has always had to pay as well. I don't know where you got that from. In fact, things were symmetric in the early days, so "user-pays" wouldn't even make sense.
It's not as simple as "data transfer" where peering agreements are involved. The fees you pay aren't there to allow Cogent to dump tons of data on one link of your ISP, forcing them to carry it on their backbone across the country to the end user there, rather than upgrading their own backbone to handle the traffic properly. If you want your ISP to just tolerate all the bad behavior of misbehaving peers, you'll quickly find your fees astronomical, as your ISP gets horribly taken advantage of, and ends up acting as a backbone for others.
All other CDNs pay substantial amounts of money for what Netflix is telling ISPs they should be given for "free". Netflix calling it "free" is pure double-speak. They're the ones trying to get free space, electricity, and tons of bandwidth for their upstart CDN.
They aren't. See the previous article:
http://recode.net/2014/02/11/n...
That's exactly what they're doing. As Cogent dumps more traffic on them, they're just not upgrading the peering points, so Cogent customers see congestion and slowdowns going to/from other ISPs. Netflix is just the biggest customer, the one end users will notice, and Cogent and others like to spin it as a net-neutrality / conflict of interest type story to spin-up outrage, since that's cheaper than actually dealing with the issue, some others don't understand and misrepresent the issue, while some are intentionally promulgating the myth to serve their own purposes. Which are you?
VP8 didn't have a chance, because H.264 was long established and popular YEARS before VP8/WebM was even released. H.264 had 7 years of no competition, so yeah, it caught on, and VP8 didn't.
This time, though, VP9 was released head-to-head with H.265. Things could be very different. While companies start coming up with H.265 decoders, VP9 will be right there next to it, completely free to implement without paying the fees they do for h.265, and with a big company like Google encouraging them, and even offering to help.
Google, and On2 before them, have always encouraged development of hardware VPx decoders. And VP9 is no exception:
http://www.design-reuse.com/ne...
Like that design, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see most H.265 chips just incidentally also supporting VP9 on equal footing. After all, why NOT provide both, when the latter is free?
There's no guarantee that VP9 will catch on, just as there's no guarantee that anybody will use H.265... it might get basically passed-over by everyone, like H.263 did... but this time around, VP9 has a solid chance to actually compete, rather than being too late to the party.
Netflix is having all these problems because they use Cogent, the cut-rate morons of the transit world...
This has happened hundreds of times, long before they carried Netflix streaming video:
http://www.pcworld.com/article...
https://secure.dslreports.com/...
https://secure.dslreports.com/...
https://secure.dslreports.com/...
http://www.complaints.com/2008...
http://publicpolicy.verizon.co...
http://www.prnewswire.com/news...
http://www.fiercetelecom.com/s...
https://www.datacenterknowledg...
etc., etc.
In this case, Sears intentionally blocked off their parking lots, forcing customers to drive over and park on long stretches of Exxon's roads... And Sears' solution to this is to ALLOW Exxon to host a free Sears kiosk in all their gas stations...
The analogy is straining... but that's about right.
Because Netflix's ISP (Cogent) is a douche bag of the highest order, who ALWAYS claims to be the innocent party in peering disputes, while they're almost always massively in-the-wrong, behaving unconscionably, and refusing to either admit to or remedy the problem they're causing.
Without in-depth details about the exact details of the Netflix disputes between Cogent and Comcast, Verizon, and others, I'm going to assume Cogent are acting like pricks, as usual, and give the other ISPs every benefit of the doubt.
You clearly have no idea how many STBs are out there.
Even if you assume there's no overlap between xbox/playstation customers (unlikely) and that they all use their game consoles to stream tv/movies, and throw in the rounding error that is all the other STBs from Apple to Roku and Chromecast, you're still only talking about 25% of the US, at best.
So, if we just assume Amazon isn't even interested in existing STB owners to buy their box/service, they've still got an open market of 75% of the US. I think that'll be a big enough for them.
Not at all. It could easily be traffic being dumped onto your backbone by a badly behaving peer. There is no means to prevent it.
Not "find", but "found". As in, past-tense.
Besides, these are just circular arguments, anyway. You're continually assuming some unlisted benefit, that may or very well *MAY NOT* be there. There are many cases in which what you said doesn't remotely hold true.
There's no such thing as uncompressed video streaming. Uncompressed video is astronomically large, and impossible to stream over any internet connection you've ever seen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
1080p@24fps is about 800Mbit/sec., something even your local gigabit LAN would struggle to sustain.
What you mean is using older, less efficient, and less computationally complex (but still lossy and still highly compressed) video codecs.
It's "free" only in 1984 new-speak...
ISP: "You mean I get to carry your traffic, perhaps much of it actually going to customers of other ISPs, on my network backbone for you, for FREE? And if I don't like that, I can provide you electricity and rack space in my ultra-expensive datacenter, where other CDNs pay to get space, and you don't give me dime for it? What a deal!"
Those "free" services Netflix is giving out to ISPs, are actually expensive ISP services that Netflix is hoping to TAKE, for FREEEEEEE!
I'm sure ISPs are chomping at the bit for the privileged of giving Netflix free electricity and rack space in their ultra-expensive and valuable data centers... Something that other CDNs (like Akami) PAY FOR, and would object to Netflix getting for free.
Right, Cogent is the one who screwed-up here, dumping an unbalanced load of (what happens to be Netflix) traffic on (say: Verizon), and Cogent neither being willing to accept other traffic to balance the peering, nor paying (Verizon) for the imbalance.
If Netflix was distributing its' traffic over several different Tier-1 providers, they wouldn't be having as big of a problem with ISPs. And Netflix is being dishonest in promoting their "free" OpenConnect devices to ISPs to reduce their network traffic. Netflix knows full well that ISPs hosting the device in their data centers costs them money, and is something that other service (like Akami) have to PAY FOR the privilege of.
I'm not terribly critical of Netflix, but they are a slightly bad-actor in all of this, and are always positioning themselves as the innocent and persecuted victim.
It's not that simple. Peering arrangements are private contracts that don't have anything to do with end users. And if you demand your ISP gives their peering partners anything they want, the peers will take massive advantage, and dump tons of their own traffic on your ISP's links, to get delivered across the country by them. When that happens, they won't be charging you a few percent more, they'll be charging you an order of magnitude more money, as your dumb sap of an ISP gets stuck delivering every other ISP's internet traffic for FREE.
That's a HORRIBLE way to measure. Anybody might live right on the border-line of a defined river-basin, and if they get their water 100ft to the west, instead of 500 miles to the east, they might be crossing those lines, and count as "importers" by your count.
TERRIBLE method, all around.
1) Da na na na na na na na na na na BATMAN!
2) Fuck the fucking fuckers...
3) Random opinionated people on /. are always more knowledgeable than experts in the subject.
I'd go another way: http://xkcd.com/851/
This guy just looked at the pictures, found a few he thinks he knows, and assumed the text with some similarity MUST BE IT.
"He said he had managed to find the word for Taurus, alongside a picture of seven stars (seen as part of the zodiac constellation of Taurus)"
Up next he'll find the word "leaf" next to a picture of a leaf, and the word "copyright" on the last page...
Almost no densely populated city can supply all it's water needs from the rainfall on the city's land-mass, even if they did have the infrastructure to capture everything going through the storm drains. Seattle may be an exception... But by you impossible standards, New York is a desert, Boston is a desert, etc.
BTW, how far away is it legal to pull water from? How about all those cities hundreds of miles from the Great Lakes, at what point are they too far away, and must be labeled as "importing" their water?
I was speaking to device manufacturers rather than consumers... They would get an APK along with license terms directly from MapQuest.
For users, though, it's available on the Amazon app store.
http://www.amazon.com/mobile-a...