Globalising the Net Neutrality Debate

rpm

rpm

Admin
Staff member
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
66,805
Reaction score
5,057
Location
Johannesburg
Globalising the Net Neutrality Debate

There are many factors that have the enabled the successful scaling of the Internet into a global phenomenon: a consensus-based, voluntary approach to standards; decentralised design; and, a vast body of openly-licensed software have all contributed.

But the element I want to talk about here is layer independent design of the Internet. Internet infrastructure is based on something called the OSI 7 layer model which breaks down communication into layers that describe everything from the wires or radios that carry signals all the way up to the application that you see in your browser or on your phone.
 
Net neutrality requires that the Internet be maintained as an open platform, on which network providers treat all content, applications and services equally, without discrimination.
Click to expand...

Is it just me or does it feel that if Net neutrality is taken away, it will basically be the same as Apartheid as in the way the governing body decided what people can see and what must be hidden and what must be empathized etc.

Is North Korea not like this in a way?
 
Thor187 said:
Is it just me or does it feel that if Net neutrality is taken away, it will basically be the same as Apartheid as in the way the governing body decided what people can see and what must be hidden and what must be empathized etc.

Is North Korea not like this in a way?
Click to expand...
Net neutrality refers to prioritisation of content and not to what people are able to see or not.
 
It seems that net neutrality is a way to get as many people as possible to pay for the same bit of content to be delivered. ISPs think that this makes excellent sense.
 
except that the Internet - or more specifically the pioneers of the Internet did not adopt the OSI 7 layer model - - too clanky and ITU-ish and so on ...
 
Net neutrality is economically unsustainable, because it proposes that everyone is entitled to the same level/quality/capacity of service from the network irrespective of their relative contribution to the maintenance/expansion of that network.

Eventually those contributing disproportionately more (essentially funding everyone else's level/quality/capacity of service) will say "bugger this unfairness", and the network will collapse in on itself (ala Eskom).
 
Swa said:
Net neutrality refers to prioritisation of content and not to what people are able to see or not.
Click to expand...

You say that like content the providers don't like won't be de-prioritized. Which is effectively deciding what you can and can't see :erm:
 
Roman4604 said:
Net neutrality is economically unsustainable, because it proposes that everyone is entitled to the same level/quality/capacity of service from the network irrespective of their relative contribution to the maintenance/expansion of that network.

Eventually those contributing disproportionately more (essentially funding everyone else's level/quality/capacity of service) will say "bugger this unfairness", and the network will collapse in on itself (ala Eskom).
Click to expand...

Those contributing more, have more subscribers, so get more income. I'm not sure you understand how this works.
 
Chevron said:
Those contributing more, have more subscribers, so get more income.
Click to expand...
But there's no guarantee those additional incomes are being ploughed back into the underlying network infrastructure. Take for instance content providers like Netflix, they are contributing nothing to the upkeep/expansion of the Net's transmission infrastructure even though their activities (business) are placing a disproportionately high demand on said infrastructure.

Chevron said:
I'm not sure you understand how this works.
Click to expand...
I do, intimately.
 
Roman4604 said:
But there's no guarantee those additional incomes are being ploughed back into the underlying network infrastructure. Take for instance content providers like Netflix, they are contributing nothing to the upkeep/expansion of the Net's transmission infrastructure even though their activities (business) are placing a disproportionately high demand on said infrastructure.

I do, intimately.
Click to expand...

Haha. Way to contradict yourself there.

1. Its not Netflix's responsibility. Netflix hosts a service. They pay their hosting provider(AWS in this case) a fee to host their content. So they have paid their fees.

2. I as the customer pay my ISP for access to the internet. All of the internet. Netflix being just one example. Hence it's my ISP's responsibility to do the upgrades and make that I have a fast connection to Netflix's hosting provider. They are getting income from me. if there are aren't upgrading their infrastructure or not charging enough to upgrade their infrastructure I will change ISPs.

3. Netflix tries as for as possible to host CDNs on ISPs local networks for free I might add.

You sound like an ISP ceo that's trying to extort the big companies as they are easy targets. Also you have shown you don't actually know anything.

Try reading up a bit before trying to look knowledgeable on a subject.
 
Chevron said:
Haha. Way to contradict yourself there.
Click to expand...
Now who's being simplistic with their understanding. Things are rarely as simple as you portray.

Chevron said:
1. Its not Netflix's responsibility. Netflix hosts a service. They pay their hosting provider(AWS in this case) a fee to host their content. So they have paid their fees.

2. I as the customer pay my ISP for access to the internet. All of the internet. Netflix being just one example. Hence it's my ISP's responsibility to do the upgrades and make that I have a fast connection to Netflix's hosting provider. They are getting income from me. if there are aren't upgrading their infrastructure or not charging enough to upgrade their infrastructure I will change ISPs.
Click to expand...
All well and good, but what if I'm a 3rd ISP sitting in between the subscriber's ISP and Netflix's hosting ISP, after all the Internet is a network of networks.

My network capacity is being hammered, what do I do? I could just say "its not my responsibility to transit this disruptive (to me) traffic since I'm getting paid squat".This scenario disrupts the very fabric of how the Internet interoperates.

Chevron said:
3. Netflix tries as for as possible to host CDNs on ISPs local networks for free I might add.
Click to expand...
Again great if impacted ISPs are happy to be forced to deploy the required CDN nodes, regardless of whether the commercial terms are beneficial or not.

Chevron said:
You sound like an ISP ceo that's trying to extort the big companies as they are easy targets. Also you have shown you don't actually know anything.

Try reading up a bit before trying to look knowledgeable on a subject.
Click to expand...
 
Roman4604 said:
All well and good, but what if I'm a 3rd ISP sitting in between the subscriber's ISP and Netflix's hosting ISP, after all the Internet is a network of networks.

My network capacity is being hammered, what do I do? I could just say "its not my responsibility to transit this disruptive (to me) traffic since I'm getting paid squat".This scenario disrupts the very fabric of how the Internet interoperates.
Click to expand...

What you're talking about there are peering agreements.

That's up to each party involved. Usually if there's an equal amount of traffic going each way the networks will peer for free as it's mutually beneficial. If most of the traffic is one then the the one pays the other. So absolutley nothing to do with with any hosted service at all.
 
Chevron said:
What you're talking about there are peering agreements.
Click to expand...
No, peering is the agreement for the bi-lateral exchange of traffic between two adjacent networks, traffic to/from 3rd party networks is usually excluded. This type of traffic is known as transit and is usually handled in a completely separate commercial arrangement.

Chevron said:
If most of the traffic is one then the the one pays the other. So absolutely nothing to do with with any hosted service at all.
Click to expand...
It should, this is the basic commercial unfairness of net neutrality. The content provider is the one instigating the capacity demand (and profiting from it), but two transmission providers (carriers) must haggle charges between themselves while the content provider pay nothing to either (assuming both are only involved in transiting the traffic). That seems like commercial free-loading to me, cleverly disguised by the cool/emotive term "net neutrality".
 
Roman4604 said:
No, peering is the agreement for the bi-lateral exchange of traffic between two adjacent networks, traffic to/from 3rd party networks is usually excluded. This type of traffic is known as transit and is usually handled in a completely separate commercial arrangement.
Click to expand...

I know. I was explaining to you how the 3rd party gets compensated.

Roman4604 said:
It should, this is the basic commercial unfairness of net neutrality. The content provider is the one instigating the capacity demand (and profiting from it), but two transmission providers (carriers) must haggle charges between themselves while the content provider pay nothing to either (assuming both are only involved in transiting the traffic). That seems like commercial free-loading to me, cleverly disguised by the cool/emotive term "net neutrality".
Click to expand...

Bull****. They pay their hosting fees. What you want to do is penalize websites for being successful.

What about every one else that just has a personal blog or small business? You're just picking on Netflix because they're an easy target.
 
A good analogy here would be how someone makes a cellphone call. The person making the call pays for the call. The person receiving the call doesn't pay unless it's a collect call/premium rated number.

I suppose you're going to say that the fact I can call my buddy without him paying a cent is unfair? Or rather only if he receives a lot of calls so he can be an easy target?

I pay my provider, they sort out the transit. End of story.
 
Chevron said:
I know. I was explaining to you how the 3rd party gets compensated.
Click to expand...
Only when they really push the point, otherwise by default there is no compensation. The OTT business model is built on the premise of free-loading the connectivity chain to the subscriber. Now that carriers are rightfully demanding a slice of the pie, deals are being forged, but its only a matter of time before the OTTs need to increase fees to pay for all the network access/transit deals.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/28/5662580/netflix-signs-traffic-deal-with-verizon


Chevron said:
They pay their hosting fees. What you want to do is penalize websites for being successful.
Click to expand...
Browsing does not result in the same capacity demands as video streaming.

Chevron said:
You're just picking on Netflix because they're an easy target.
Click to expand...
No because they're the ones causing a large part of the the capacity demands,while trying to justify it with the concept of "net neutrality"
 
Last edited:
You don't seem to have any idea what net neutrality is.
 
Swa said:
You don't seem to have any idea what net neutrality is.
Click to expand...
Because it doesn't really exist. Its a made up moral argument created in the commercial war between the content (OTT) and transmission (carrier) providers on the Internet.

If you think its real, then you're the one whose been duped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X