Is an example of everyone on FIOS fair? Is the cost of the switch really the big bogey when you're talking about running "new" fiber to 5,000 homes?
It sounds like you're describing a scenario in which there's no scarcity of a resource and saying, "see there's enough for everyone!" But you have to describe how networks should function when the resource is truly scarce. From what I understand, cable segments are notoriously overpopulated... "guaranteeing" bandwidth would be very extremely expensive... akin to the "dedicated line" pricing of phone lines always being far more expensive. The whole model is predicated on the assumption that most people will not be on at the same time... and when many are, it drops to a crawl... because there is nowhere near the capacity on a cable segment that there is on fiber....
They may have to invest further upstream, but the final connection to the house is not the issue even with a coax cable.
Nick Oliva
· 3 months ago
I think we'll disagree about that... (unless it has changed since I learned about it) cable technology for IP traffic involves a sharing of the bandwidth by all the endpoints on a switch... guaranteeing traffic to any one customer would very quickly change the network topography required. DSL, on the other hand, (and I imagine fiber) involves a direct line from each customer to the station, and so it's performance isn't affect by others' usage... but speeds are much slower.
Below is what it says in their terms of service... you referenced sales info. They're going to sell you on how it works when you're home on a Tuesday afternoon... not when you're trying to stream content during the Super Bowl.
I think the main point is still that you're only considering situations where there isn't scarcity... and the net neutrality argument is only relevant when there is.
===== Cablevision also does not guarantee continuous, uninterrupted or secure access to the Internet. Cablevision does not warrant that service will be available on a specified date or time or that the network will have the capacity to meet your demand during specific hours. Further, Cablevision does not guarantee or warrant any particular speed of connection. In addition, Cablevision expressly disclaims any and all liability arising from or relating to any failure to provide adequate bandwidth to any Subscriber. Access to the network cannot be guaranteed, and you may be unable to access the network at any time, and disconnections from the network may occur from time to time.
albert
· 3 months ago
That's actually a big point here. If they can't deliver your bandwidth they have to start to throttle. What net neutrality says is that they can't pick on some type of traffic, they have to throttle it all. So if their cable plant can't actually deliver this, without selective throttling of traffic, then they shouldn't be able to make claims in an ad about their speeds.
Nick Oliva
· 3 months ago
The economics of many services require some balancing of delivery... pipes, roads, hairdressers, etc. I think they would argue that you're misinterpreting their ads... as they point you to their "fine print".
When faced with a "reality" that much of the network requires some kind of throttling... or conversely, suffers from lags so significant that discouraged surfers disconnect, I'm not sure that treating all content equally is a good idea, nor that fair "equals" neutral.
I would argue that capacity should be spread out equally first... if you only have 1.5 mbps for everybody online right now, then prioritize the first 1.5mbps to every person and only provide additional capacity "per person" as there is availability. But someone may argue that this "fair" approach is not "neutral", i.e., that it is equivalent to saying "throttle back the video and games"... since they are the ones who will be disrupted while the blogger, surfer, etc. chug along. I'm not sure I disagree with that... seems fair to me and not neutral.
... sorry... I know you meant to focus on the effort of the provider to sell premium services, and I don't disagree that the way they're going about it is questionable. Still, I don't think it's fair to ignore the very real technical reality.
Right now it just seems to me like providers are trying to go after the deep pockets and competitive drive of powerful Web companies to make up for the extra money they can't squeeze out of consumers because of the competition they face for the last mile.
Q dub
· 2 months ago
While a 5 mbps HD stream is only 1/3 of your 15 mbps Verizon connection, ALL residential broadband resources are provisioned on the basis that only a few connections are active simultaneously. What broadband providers want to protect is their ability to over-provision at the multiples they've always enjoyed. Even 30x over-provisioning is not uncommon!
This has little to do with net neutrality, but I wanted to point out that bandwidth scarcity is in fact a problem if you factor over-provisioning into your back-of-the envelope math.
The part where I'm a bit fuzzy about is VOIP: while 100kbps is not bad, 100kbps perfectly QOS'd may be harder than you think. I don't know the math here, so many another expert can comment =)
albert
· 2 months ago
That was my point about "truth in advertising" (which I now realize I didn't actually get to). I simply think that over-selling (really under-provisioning) like that simply should not be possible. My other point was that the cost of concentrating those streams up into Gigabit routers and switches isn't as bad as one might think.
All Comments
It sounds like you're describing a scenario in which there's no scarcity of a resource and saying, "see there's enough for everyone!" But you have to describe how networks should function when the resource is truly scarce. From what I understand, cable segments are notoriously overpopulated... "guaranteeing" bandwidth would be very extremely expensive... akin to the "dedicated line" pricing of phone lines always being far more expensive. The whole model is predicated on the assumption that most people will not be on at the same time... and when many are, it drops to a crawl... because there is nowhere near the capacity on a cable segment that there is on fiber....
http://www.optimum.com/online/why/faster.jsp
They may have to invest further upstream, but the final connection to the house is not the issue even with a coax cable.
Below is what it says in their terms of service... you referenced sales info. They're going to sell you on how it works when you're home on a Tuesday afternoon... not when you're trying to stream content during the Super Bowl.
I think the main point is still that you're only considering situations where there isn't scarcity... and the net neutrality argument is only relevant when there is.
=====
Cablevision also does not guarantee continuous, uninterrupted or secure access to the Internet. Cablevision does not warrant that service will be available on a specified date or time or that the network will have the capacity to meet your demand during specific hours. Further, Cablevision does not guarantee or warrant any particular speed of connection. In addition, Cablevision expressly disclaims any and all liability arising from or relating to any failure to provide adequate bandwidth to any Subscriber. Access to the network cannot be guaranteed, and you may be unable to access the network at any time, and disconnections from the network may occur from time to time.
When faced with a "reality" that much of the network requires some kind of throttling... or conversely, suffers from lags so significant that discouraged surfers disconnect, I'm not sure that treating all content equally is a good idea, nor that fair "equals" neutral.
I would argue that capacity should be spread out equally first... if you only have 1.5 mbps for everybody online right now, then prioritize the first 1.5mbps to every person and only provide additional capacity "per person" as there is availability. But someone may argue that this "fair" approach is not "neutral", i.e., that it is equivalent to saying "throttle back the video and games"... since they are the ones who will be disrupted while the blogger, surfer, etc. chug along. I'm not sure I disagree with that... seems fair to me and not neutral.
... sorry... I know you meant to focus on the effort of the provider to sell premium services, and I don't disagree that the way they're going about it is questionable. Still, I don't think it's fair to ignore the very real technical reality.
Right now it just seems to me like providers are trying to go after the deep pockets and competitive drive of powerful Web companies to make up for the extra money they can't squeeze out of consumers because of the competition they face for the last mile.
This has little to do with net neutrality, but I wanted to point out that bandwidth scarcity is in fact a problem if you factor over-provisioning into your back-of-the envelope math.
The part where I'm a bit fuzzy about is VOIP: while 100kbps is not bad, 100kbps perfectly QOS'd may be harder than you think. I don't know the math here, so many another expert can comment =)