There's one important thing that I can't seem to dig up in any of the press releases or blog entries about this: What is the committed information rate? This is the rate that they have to provide service at before they break their SLA to you. We're all familiar with the "up to 101 Mbps" marketing. Without a CIR, this is the same as saying that this lottery ticket is worth $100M*.
I loved my Cablevision data service here in NJ (the TV quality was bad). They sold me 30Mbps/5 Mbps and I could consistently get 15-20 Mbps service, for about $50-60 month with taxes and fees. This blew away my previous experience with Time Warner and Comcast. However, one time (in 2 years) it dropped for a few hours down to ~1-2Mbps and I called to complain. They said they were having issues and were going to have the problem reserved shortly. I asked for a (partial) refund for the month. The representative highlighted my contract that shows I was only entitled to ~512Kbps (if memory serves). I wasn't allowed to complain unless my service went below 512K! On a 30Mbps "connection"!
I will say that Cablevision does a very good job with their network, from the end user perspective. However, if they start dolling out 101Mbps without upgrading the backbone links, it will be hard to get 101Mbps anywhere.
All your arguments are sound, but you're implying that ISPs are not also free to do what they want with their significant investment in network infrastructure. What do you think happens to Comcast if they can no longer make money selling $40/month unlimited Internet to their subscribers? They don't invest in it.
The basic premise that the government gets to say that a private enterprise (Comcast) cannot manage their investment will result in a dampening of investment of new capital. I see Net Neutrality as a good way of keeping the Internet exactly how it is today: same access speeds, same technology, same everything. I don't want that. Do you think that Verizon would be spending ~$20B on FiOS deployments if they thought the government would have defacto ownership of these connections?
If you were unhappy with your service provider because they were screwing around with your traffic, you don't have to buy the service. You state there is no alternative in some areas, which is a common issue brought up in this context. However, aren't there always alternatives if you're willing to pay for them? A T1 is expensive and probably slower, but I bet you can get it from someone. If enough of your friends were also in the same boat and upset, wouldn't it make obvious sense to start a rival ISP that didn't screw around with your traffic?
The free market caters to the masses at the expense of the minority. The government caters to the minority at the expense of the masses.
Well put, but a bit extreme if you ask me. You say yourself it probably wouldn't get this bad.
Currently, Time Warner can enter an agreement with Yahoo! and block Google. Why don't they? Because of massive customer outrage and consumers switching. Imagine the fall out for Time Warner. Is government regulation really the way to prevent this from happening, or is traditional consumer choice the cure?
I agree with you on this issue for many of the same reasons. As I understand it, the argument against your view is two-fold:
1. ISPs could block objectionable websites, or even websites of competitors.
2. ISPs could launch their own service, VoIP is a good example, and intentionally delay competitors packets to degrade quality, even if the network isn't busy. This spirals into an argument about ISPs asking for "ransom" money from over the top providers like Google, if they want their traffic to be expedited.
It seems clear to me that the ISPs are incented to not do either of the above, because as a user, I will object and switch carriers. The counter to this is that there is not enough broadband choice in most areas. I agree with this statement, but I don't believe it's the governments job to ensure broadband choice if the economics don't support it.
Further, it's clear to me that there are no current Net Neutrality regulations, and there are no real egregious offenses out there by ISPs.
I don't understand why this isn't viewed as a good thing by the tech community. With the amount of self professed Libertarians around here, you would expect there would be someone calling for less regulation on the Internet.
Let me be the first. I applaud the removal of Net Neutrality requirements in any "stimulus" bill.
The economics of Google or Microsoft building a backbone doesn't make sense.
A backbone is a commodity provider and if AT&T doesn't play nice with Google, then Google can go to Sprint, or Verizon, or Level3, or any number of cable companies that are increasingly getting into the game.
If Google wanted to build the last mile, you're talking serious expenses, that even Google can't afford. Look at Verizon, who is spending $20B+ on retrofitting some percentage of their footprint with FiOS. The vast majority of this is the truck rolls and actual installs and not the CO upgrades.
The only way that I see Google becoming an "old school" provider is if they slam some wireless connectivity (perhaps coupled with something like Android) to the majority of the country. However, the problem I see with that is that the Google service, while ubiquitous and possibly "free" becomes a second class service behind your super speedy 10Mbps+ service from your traditional provider. Realistically, wireline services will always be faster than wireless services.
The proposal is actually to put servers in the ISPs cloud, close to the edge user. This is a blatant violation of their Net Neutrality position because it is cutting a deal with providers in order to ensure faster Google service.
Shockingly, no Net Neutrality proponent can describe to me why we need Net Neutrality regulations to ensure what we've had for the past ~20 years.
Give to Donors Choose.org. You can browse around for a classroom that you like, for a project that you like, and you give money directly to it. From there, the classroom will send you thank you notes and give you warm fuzzies.
Generally speaking, it's a good way to give back. Most schools don't want you to just come in, dump some old equipment on them and leave. They want new equipment and all the warranties etc. There's a little bit of overhead on the charity, but it's within acceptable ranges.
Offensive is the wrong word. What I meant was that it was as offensive as someone booing President Elect Obama.
It's disrespectful. I have only a small problem with the sticker, only a small problem with people booing the President Elect.
I have a huge problem with people who complain about someone else booing the President Elect and at the same time, have a bumper sticker like "somewhere in Texas a village is missing an idiot." Both are disrespectful on a base level, and I don't condone that disrespect of our President (or President Elect). I do tolerate it, however, because that's what free speech is about.
Considering I'm not a right wing authoritarian, I would say it's a stretch to compare me to them. However, you were the one who got worked up by Maher segment where he showed a few enthusiastic (if not misguided) McCain supporters who at his rally booed that he had to concede.
You tried to take the moral high ground by pointing out that the Democrats would never disrespect someone by booing at a rally. I pointed out that the sore loser Democrats were far worse in the past 8 years by throwing bumper stickers, t-shirts, flags, and everything they could print a logo on to prove how much they despised our current President. Why can't the McCain supporters boo at a concession speech? You're the one who pointed out: "Notice how it's the right always claiming that the other side is just as bad as they are." I'm simply pointing out that, yes the far left is just as bad as the far right.
And of course I'm aware of the horrible things that the few conservative media have said. I'm also aware of the horrible things that a few in the liberal media have said.
You're right - I never saw a "Not My President" sticker in the last 8 years. I never saw an offensive slogan about "end of an error - 1/20/2009" and I never saw any childish bumperstickers comparing the US President's last name with female genitalia. The Democrats of the past 8 year were such good losers.
Please, make a mental tally how many times you'll see these offensive things in the next 4 years. Also, keep in mind, how many times it will be called racism if you don't support President-Elect Obama.
"For al-Qaeda, "these sites are the equivalent of pentagon.mil, whitehouse.gov, att.com," said Evan F. Kohlmann, an expert on online al-Qaeda operations..."
Apparently he's not an expert on American communications - who get any information from the three sites he called out?
I was an early-ish adopter of HDTV, getting a rear projection screen in 2002. The TV served me well, but only served up 480i, 480p, 1080i signals. It only had component inputs (2 of them) and a bunch of standard non HD inputs. I had already hooked up my Xbox and cable box to the HD inputs. I wasn't about to buy a new receiver that could switch the inputs. I didn't even consider Blu-Ray because my TV wasn't 1080p and the Xbox 360 does a decent job of rendering typical DVDs.
However, just today, my TV finally broke - completely. 6 years in and the blue went all whacky for 3 days and now the picture is toast. Is it fixable? Probably, but given the typical repairs on a HDTV, probably would take about two weeks and be about $600-$1000. So I went to NewEgg, got myself a nice Panasonic 42" Plasma (with wall mount and some HDMI cables and shipping) for less than $1500. This is not something I would normally do, but given that I only have one TV, and it's dead - it seemed like a good time to upgrade. I was waiting for this day - for the day the TV was completely "obsolete" so I could spend the cash. However, I wasn't going to just go out and buy a new TV. Why bother? The prices drop through the floor every February and again over the summer. The $1200 TV will be a $1000 TV next year.
Anyhow, back to the point: I am just now ready for a Blu-Ray player. I'll probably go grab one after the holidays when everything is cheap and start renting Blu-Ray movies (or buy a few favorites). However, look at me for an example, I was a early adopter of HDTV (when I could barely afford it) and I dragged my feet to Blu-Ray (when I could easily afford it). The incentives to go to Blu-Ray were so low, even for someone who is very sensitive to the video quality. It's not the DRM, or the technology, or Sony, it's just that it's a bad economic decision for most people. $x hundred or thousand in new equipment and media for a gain in video and audio? Probably not going to happen around here. Now, as the latest generation of TVs and DVD players crap out (give it until the end of the decade) I'm sure people will move to Blu-Ray. People like new stuff, even if they don't quite understand it. However, they're not going to run out and buy a $150 player when the current one works fine. Remember, many of these people (at least the people in this target market) just spent $x hundreds or thousands on upgrading to HDTV - kind of breaks the bank if you have to upgrade the TVs every 3 years.
In short, the one thing Blu-Ray has going for it is that this generation of electronics has the reliability far worse compared to what was built in the 70s and 80s. (Yes, much of this is due to the complexities of today's electronics.)
Nota bene: I wouldn't be surprised to see a really great holiday season with super low prices.
If there was a power outage, they might not be able to find the guy to turn on the machine? Then it's time to upgrade.
I agree with you that if it works, why fix it? But when a product has reached end of support because 1) the manufacturer has stopped supporting it or 2) there is no one in the working population that knows what to do with it, then you have to get it out of your infrastructure. You cannot continue to rely on products that you have no way of fixing if they break. Just because it hasn't broken in the past 30 years is no indicator that you won't hit something in the next 30 that won't break it.
Absolutely. If you sample 1 in x thousand, you'll get a view as to what the network is doing. This is crucial. However, if you want to classify these packets, and mark and remark as needed to apply to your networks policy, you'll need to look at each and every packet. Additionally, you'll need to look into the payload of each packet. From there, you can mark as necessary, BitTorrent, Voice, Video, etc.
I have a bit of history with two large service providers in the US. While I have not been involved directly with the deep packet inspection teams, I have had direct contact with all of them and helped them design networks using this technology. The technology was never sold to upper management as a way to track our users and target ads to them. It was never intended to capture a web page hit that was directed at a specific company to see what that consumer was interested in. Instead, it was always meant to monitor users (and more importantly, user aggregates) and determine what kind of traffic they were sending.
It was, and is, always about the network profile. If they find out that 10% of the traffic on the network is VoIP traffic, they want to design the network shift this traffic to have lower latency.** If they find out that 50% of the traffic is BitTorrent, they may put rules in place around such services. In my opinion, the service providers that I have dealt with do not have the technology in place to target down to the user. Also, they do not appear to be developing this technology.
**Some can argue that providers are instinctively evil and want to destroy this traffic, but I'm not going to fight this here.
What the hell could you possibly be doing with more than 60GB a month anyway?
"640K ought to be enough for everybody."
Jokes aside, you're mostly right - 60GB is a ton of usage, even on a fast pipe. Consider at 15Mbps, which is roughly the fastest speed you can get regularly* across the country, that's 22 days of straight downloading every second.
*Yes, there are faster services (FiOS), but most of the time, the top tier is 15Mbps from good cable companies. Yes, I also understand certain people can't get more than 5-6 Mbps from their ISPs.
Very true. To clarify, my point wasn't that most TVs are new, but rather that most households have new TVs. I think most people do have a TV in their basement that is pushing 10 years. However, it's not the primary device.
Slashdot Mirror
There's one important thing that I can't seem to dig up in any of the press releases or blog entries about this: What is the committed information rate? This is the rate that they have to provide service at before they break their SLA to you. We're all familiar with the "up to 101 Mbps" marketing. Without a CIR, this is the same as saying that this lottery ticket is worth $100M*.
I loved my Cablevision data service here in NJ (the TV quality was bad). They sold me 30Mbps/5 Mbps and I could consistently get 15-20 Mbps service, for about $50-60 month with taxes and fees. This blew away my previous experience with Time Warner and Comcast. However, one time (in 2 years) it dropped for a few hours down to ~1-2Mbps and I called to complain. They said they were having issues and were going to have the problem reserved shortly. I asked for a (partial) refund for the month. The representative highlighted my contract that shows I was only entitled to ~512Kbps (if memory serves). I wasn't allowed to complain unless my service went below 512K! On a 30Mbps "connection"!
I will say that Cablevision does a very good job with their network, from the end user perspective. However, if they start dolling out 101Mbps without upgrading the backbone links, it will be hard to get 101Mbps anywhere.
*fine print: up to $100M
All your arguments are sound, but you're implying that ISPs are not also free to do what they want with their significant investment in network infrastructure. What do you think happens to Comcast if they can no longer make money selling $40/month unlimited Internet to their subscribers? They don't invest in it.
The basic premise that the government gets to say that a private enterprise (Comcast) cannot manage their investment will result in a dampening of investment of new capital. I see Net Neutrality as a good way of keeping the Internet exactly how it is today: same access speeds, same technology, same everything. I don't want that. Do you think that Verizon would be spending ~$20B on FiOS deployments if they thought the government would have defacto ownership of these connections?
If you were unhappy with your service provider because they were screwing around with your traffic, you don't have to buy the service. You state there is no alternative in some areas, which is a common issue brought up in this context. However, aren't there always alternatives if you're willing to pay for them? A T1 is expensive and probably slower, but I bet you can get it from someone. If enough of your friends were also in the same boat and upset, wouldn't it make obvious sense to start a rival ISP that didn't screw around with your traffic?
The free market caters to the masses at the expense of the minority. The government caters to the minority at the expense of the masses.
Well put, but a bit extreme if you ask me. You say yourself it probably wouldn't get this bad.
Currently, Time Warner can enter an agreement with Yahoo! and block Google. Why don't they? Because of massive customer outrage and consumers switching. Imagine the fall out for Time Warner. Is government regulation really the way to prevent this from happening, or is traditional consumer choice the cure?
Mark,
I agree with you on this issue for many of the same reasons. As I understand it, the argument against your view is two-fold:
1. ISPs could block objectionable websites, or even websites of competitors.
2. ISPs could launch their own service, VoIP is a good example, and intentionally delay competitors packets to degrade quality, even if the network isn't busy. This spirals into an argument about ISPs asking for "ransom" money from over the top providers like Google, if they want their traffic to be expedited.
It seems clear to me that the ISPs are incented to not do either of the above, because as a user, I will object and switch carriers. The counter to this is that there is not enough broadband choice in most areas. I agree with this statement, but I don't believe it's the governments job to ensure broadband choice if the economics don't support it.
Further, it's clear to me that there are no current Net Neutrality regulations, and there are no real egregious offenses out there by ISPs.
I don't understand why this isn't viewed as a good thing by the tech community. With the amount of self professed Libertarians around here, you would expect there would be someone calling for less regulation on the Internet.
Let me be the first. I applaud the removal of Net Neutrality requirements in any "stimulus" bill.
The economics of Google or Microsoft building a backbone doesn't make sense.
A backbone is a commodity provider and if AT&T doesn't play nice with Google, then Google can go to Sprint, or Verizon, or Level3, or any number of cable companies that are increasingly getting into the game.
If Google wanted to build the last mile, you're talking serious expenses, that even Google can't afford. Look at Verizon, who is spending $20B+ on retrofitting some percentage of their footprint with FiOS. The vast majority of this is the truck rolls and actual installs and not the CO upgrades.
The only way that I see Google becoming an "old school" provider is if they slam some wireless connectivity (perhaps coupled with something like Android) to the majority of the country. However, the problem I see with that is that the Google service, while ubiquitous and possibly "free" becomes a second class service behind your super speedy 10Mbps+ service from your traditional provider. Realistically, wireline services will always be faster than wireless services.
The proposal is actually to put servers in the ISPs cloud, close to the edge user. This is a blatant violation of their Net Neutrality position because it is cutting a deal with providers in order to ensure faster Google service.
Shockingly, no Net Neutrality proponent can describe to me why we need Net Neutrality regulations to ensure what we've had for the past ~20 years.
Give to Donors Choose.org. You can browse around for a classroom that you like, for a project that you like, and you give money directly to it. From there, the classroom will send you thank you notes and give you warm fuzzies.
Generally speaking, it's a good way to give back. Most schools don't want you to just come in, dump some old equipment on them and leave. They want new equipment and all the warranties etc. There's a little bit of overhead on the charity, but it's within acceptable ranges.
Mod parent up - this is the first thing I thought of.
Offensive is the wrong word. What I meant was that it was as offensive as someone booing President Elect Obama.
It's disrespectful. I have only a small problem with the sticker, only a small problem with people booing the President Elect.
I have a huge problem with people who complain about someone else booing the President Elect and at the same time, have a bumper sticker like "somewhere in Texas a village is missing an idiot." Both are disrespectful on a base level, and I don't condone that disrespect of our President (or President Elect). I do tolerate it, however, because that's what free speech is about.
You've clearly got an axe to grind. Go back to Daily Kos. You're not worth the effort.
Considering I'm not a right wing authoritarian, I would say it's a stretch to compare me to them. However, you were the one who got worked up by Maher segment where he showed a few enthusiastic (if not misguided) McCain supporters who at his rally booed that he had to concede.
You tried to take the moral high ground by pointing out that the Democrats would never disrespect someone by booing at a rally. I pointed out that the sore loser Democrats were far worse in the past 8 years by throwing bumper stickers, t-shirts, flags, and everything they could print a logo on to prove how much they despised our current President. Why can't the McCain supporters boo at a concession speech? You're the one who pointed out: "Notice how it's the right always claiming that the other side is just as bad as they are." I'm simply pointing out that, yes the far left is just as bad as the far right.
And of course I'm aware of the horrible things that the few conservative media have said. I'm also aware of the horrible things that a few in the liberal media have said.
You're right - I never saw a "Not My President" sticker in the last 8 years. I never saw an offensive slogan about "end of an error - 1/20/2009" and I never saw any childish bumperstickers comparing the US President's last name with female genitalia. The Democrats of the past 8 year were such good losers.
Oh wait
Please, make a mental tally how many times you'll see these offensive things in the next 4 years. Also, keep in mind, how many times it will be called racism if you don't support President-Elect Obama.
"For al-Qaeda, "these sites are the equivalent of pentagon.mil, whitehouse.gov, att.com," said Evan F. Kohlmann, an expert on online al-Qaeda operations..."
Apparently he's not an expert on American communications - who get any information from the three sites he called out?
I was an early-ish adopter of HDTV, getting a rear projection screen in 2002. The TV served me well, but only served up 480i, 480p, 1080i signals. It only had component inputs (2 of them) and a bunch of standard non HD inputs. I had already hooked up my Xbox and cable box to the HD inputs. I wasn't about to buy a new receiver that could switch the inputs. I didn't even consider Blu-Ray because my TV wasn't 1080p and the Xbox 360 does a decent job of rendering typical DVDs.
However, just today, my TV finally broke - completely. 6 years in and the blue went all whacky for 3 days and now the picture is toast. Is it fixable? Probably, but given the typical repairs on a HDTV, probably would take about two weeks and be about $600-$1000. So I went to NewEgg, got myself a nice Panasonic 42" Plasma (with wall mount and some HDMI cables and shipping) for less than $1500. This is not something I would normally do, but given that I only have one TV, and it's dead - it seemed like a good time to upgrade. I was waiting for this day - for the day the TV was completely "obsolete" so I could spend the cash. However, I wasn't going to just go out and buy a new TV. Why bother? The prices drop through the floor every February and again over the summer. The $1200 TV will be a $1000 TV next year.
Anyhow, back to the point: I am just now ready for a Blu-Ray player. I'll probably go grab one after the holidays when everything is cheap and start renting Blu-Ray movies (or buy a few favorites). However, look at me for an example, I was a early adopter of HDTV (when I could barely afford it) and I dragged my feet to Blu-Ray (when I could easily afford it). The incentives to go to Blu-Ray were so low, even for someone who is very sensitive to the video quality. It's not the DRM, or the technology, or Sony, it's just that it's a bad economic decision for most people. $x hundred or thousand in new equipment and media for a gain in video and audio? Probably not going to happen around here. Now, as the latest generation of TVs and DVD players crap out (give it until the end of the decade) I'm sure people will move to Blu-Ray. People like new stuff, even if they don't quite understand it. However, they're not going to run out and buy a $150 player when the current one works fine. Remember, many of these people (at least the people in this target market) just spent $x hundreds or thousands on upgrading to HDTV - kind of breaks the bank if you have to upgrade the TVs every 3 years.
In short, the one thing Blu-Ray has going for it is that this generation of electronics has the reliability far worse compared to what was built in the 70s and 80s. (Yes, much of this is due to the complexities of today's electronics.)
Nota bene: I wouldn't be surprised to see a really great holiday season with super low prices.
They already do this - who do you think reads all those X-Rays?
Yeah, nothing is quite so easy as adding another multi-million dollar router and new long haul optical gear and then provisioning the whole thing.
It's much harder to configure QoS.
I think you have it backwards.
If there was a power outage, they might not be able to find the guy to turn on the machine? Then it's time to upgrade.
I agree with you that if it works, why fix it? But when a product has reached end of support because 1) the manufacturer has stopped supporting it or 2) there is no one in the working population that knows what to do with it, then you have to get it out of your infrastructure. You cannot continue to rely on products that you have no way of fixing if they break. Just because it hasn't broken in the past 30 years is no indicator that you won't hit something in the next 30 that won't break it.
Absolutely. If you sample 1 in x thousand, you'll get a view as to what the network is doing. This is crucial. However, if you want to classify these packets, and mark and remark as needed to apply to your networks policy, you'll need to look at each and every packet. Additionally, you'll need to look into the payload of each packet. From there, you can mark as necessary, BitTorrent, Voice, Video, etc.
I have a bit of history with two large service providers in the US. While I have not been involved directly with the deep packet inspection teams, I have had direct contact with all of them and helped them design networks using this technology. The technology was never sold to upper management as a way to track our users and target ads to them. It was never intended to capture a web page hit that was directed at a specific company to see what that consumer was interested in. Instead, it was always meant to monitor users (and more importantly, user aggregates) and determine what kind of traffic they were sending.
It was, and is, always about the network profile. If they find out that 10% of the traffic on the network is VoIP traffic, they want to design the network shift this traffic to have lower latency.** If they find out that 50% of the traffic is BitTorrent, they may put rules in place around such services. In my opinion, the service providers that I have dealt with do not have the technology in place to target down to the user. Also, they do not appear to be developing this technology.
**Some can argue that providers are instinctively evil and want to destroy this traffic, but I'm not going to fight this here.
Email for [physical] things. We already have that - it's called mail.
Must escape from technology overkill.
Yikes - my bad, you are correct on the numbers. Teach me to post when tired.
For those interested, I botched it by forgetting to convert to minutes....
60,000 MB x 8 bits/byte = 480,000 Mb
480,000 Mb / 15 Mbps = 32,000 seconds
32,000 s x 1 minute / 60 seconds = 533 minutes
533 minutes x 1 hour / 60 minutes = 8.8 hours (this is the step I missed, I was working with 533 hours!)
What the hell could you possibly be doing with more than 60GB a month anyway?
"640K ought to be enough for everybody."
Jokes aside, you're mostly right - 60GB is a ton of usage, even on a fast pipe. Consider at 15Mbps, which is roughly the fastest speed you can get regularly* across the country, that's 22 days of straight downloading every second.
*Yes, there are faster services (FiOS), but most of the time, the top tier is 15Mbps from good cable companies. Yes, I also understand certain people can't get more than 5-6 Mbps from their ISPs.
Very true. To clarify, my point wasn't that most TVs are new, but rather that most households have new TVs. I think most people do have a TV in their basement that is pushing 10 years. However, it's not the primary device.