Net neutrality is...
DaLe
...well, reading comments and stuff, e.g. where I also posted myself:
http://www.pcgamer.com/fcc-approves-net-neutrality-everyone-rejoices/
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mathonan/now-the-internet-belongs-to-us-and-to-politics
Net neutrality is apparently according to many in the U.S. for Hollywood and Cable TV to use the broadband internet as their digital distribution net, for free, while customers expect dedicated T5 lines to handle all the streams in the world, of course, ideally also for free. And comments where I mentioned the patriot act, anti-trust laws (in cases of alleged really shaddy stuff by e.g. ISPs) as well the issue of service provision in small municipalities being in the middle of nowhere (expecting some private investor to carry a top-notch service provision), well, those comments on Buzzfeed posted with Facebook-account disappeared.
Myself, I am on a 100Mbit/s line at home (Berlin, Germany), so I could (and somewhat do) care little about guys with 2Mbit/s lines trying to each download several (HD) video streams at once, and that even in terms of me caring more about ping than being able to download gigas within minutes any time of the day. But I do want to point out that if we are talking in terms of "independent internet" and stuff, local lines getting clogged up by HD streams is actually contrary to the whole "easy and fast internet access for stuff internetian", meaning that wood bridges and "mud" driveways are not capable of handling a constant flow of monster trucks, regardless of how you ideologically call it. Now of course, the next thing would be to scientifically pinpoint stuff (which would be for me personally at my level of knowledge a bit too much, but I still seem to be more IT literate about these kind of things than many a guy actually getting paid for knowing these kind of things). So yeah, just want to say that the handling of such issues seems rather ridiculous, especially if the ISPs were really on about data volume and not content (as some do present the issue to be about without actually mentioning how the patriot act does not infringe on content, if it does not, which does not seem likely). Then again, ISPs are probably full of engineers and have barely to no PR, which would partially explain the set of confusion, but myself not so much on about the issue of particular blame in that confusion and people with 2Mbit/s demanding for upper internet users to have all the HD streams in the world, as I am on about it being seriously ridiculous that many an user (with small data volume useage) gets stuck in lag (connection-side) because someone couldn't be bothered to pay for premium cable-TV (for about same amount of money as broadband internet connection) and now wants click-on-demand HD streams (regardless of what connection they are on), and all that paid for magically I suppose.
Comments
Where high data volume usage gets politically quickly relevant to me is in terms of "industrial usage" of the internet, which is btw why e.g. Germany finances afaik backbones which I do support (tho not at "and no taxes for all of them"). In other words, do I want a start-up in a small town somewhere to be able to open an office in that town while having high-data volume internet connection/s they really need for their business? Yes, I do. Do I think that back-bones should be as well designated to be able to carry high data volume by households. Yes, I do. But I certainly see a distinction between cable-TV substitute and internet connection as such, meaning that I personally can live with my data volume traffic a month being "merely" 10 giga as long as my ping is and stays constantly low, connection-side (for purposes of mostly gaming, but also surfing and them cloud-based programes), which is from my experience rather difficult as is, especially with folks on the shared ISP line each and all wanting to have internet usage above the design of each of their connection while ISP is expected to somehow magically have HD streams even on 2Mbit/s lines or else it allegedly being some sort of totalitarianism that they do not.
In any case, how much data volume industry and household need and will or would need surely is relevant. Such as that when a backbone being able to carry multiple HD streams to and from households (you know, one person watching three streams at once while streaming themselves and also having friends streaming themselves, and there being 4 more persons in such household) costs a lot more than 100Mbit/s lines backbone, then it surely becomes difficult to argue on why every household needs a relativly huge digital data highway up to their door - similar to issue of communal water-pipes paid for publically and private swimming pools which are usually not paid for publically.
The article is TLDR for me, but based on title, something similar is happening in Czech. ISPs have invisible war between each other. And routing our request instead directly to target, to another country (moss often Germany) which leads to much worse latency and speed.
So in graph instead of:
Me > My ISP > ISP2 > ISP3 > Server i want to reach
request go like:
Me > My ISP > ISP2 > Germany ISP > ISP4 > ISP3 > Server i want to reach
More info in http://www.root.cz/clanky/superproblemy-se-super-network-hosting-em/ (Article in Czech)
I was on about "local outside of home" connections having latency problems for small data traffic users due to huge data volume traffic especially with streams (and that usually at the same hours). Well, sort of ranting I suppose, based on how in U.S. FCC and as if in another world the whole situation of what kind of connections probably most users (in the U.S.) have.
Nevertheless, certainly thank you for pointing out yet another issue down the road. My sort of gaming user approach here is on about the latency foremostly, and I am aware that "lag" has various points where it can occur, even at the home computer itself in terms of screen lag, you know, there being 2ms response time screens and so on.
"Samozřejmě linky do zahraničí jsou kapacitně menší (logicky českého uživatele zajímá především český obsah) a jejich provoz je dražší."
While not saying that other things in the article make no sense, this particular thing about the across borders links sounds a bit to me as if data super highways to/from Germany are being used while in CR there not really being them date super highways in various directions?
There seem to be various maps, some of individually administered networks, some of them outdated apparently. Here is one tho which partially shows what I am on about:
http://www.submarinecablemap.com/
in terms of if e.g. an user in the CR wants to connect to a computer in the U.S., there probably not being a straight fiber optics cable between Prague and Long Island, New Jersey and/or Florida.
E.g. 2001 GÉANT had a network where from the CR one 10Gbit/s was into Germany, and 2,5Gbit/s ones were each into Poland and Slovakia, with none directly into Austria:
http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/m.dodge/cybergeography/atlas/geant_large.gif
I can't agree if I understand you right.
My speciality is Telecommunication.
The most problem in IT is the problem of "Last mile". "Last mile" is the problem how to transmit information with big speed from provider to customer.
Old cables (telephone cables for example) can't provide big speed (if you remember 56k modems), PSK and FSK modulators (DSL technology) help to increase speed a little. But it is physics of modulation in cooper cables: big distance = few Mbps. Cooper cable may give you more speed (
Radio equipment is the most easy type of communication to be built. Some types of modulation in radio may give you few tens Mbps in microwave range. But microwave range unstable in the atmosphere, strong rain will generate failures in communication. Because of that providers don't want to build such infrastructure.
The best variant is fiberoptic. Great speed (
Thank you for talking a bit about these things. Myself, I did rant. And that rant is about this whole thing of, as you basically also said, there being e-streets. And those e-streets not being very fast, respectivly having limited capacity, that is that if someone in such street with a 2Mbit/s drive-way wants to watch (/download) 3 videa from YouTube at once, then sure, they will eventually download but not in terms of what is presented as existing standart, that is click and watch. And to me, as someone else in that e-street and using more often than not relativly small packets, it doesn't seem fair if my latency suffers from something which already exists in various forms. Not that I would have a problem with streams as such, but to say (as apparently FCC did): "Sure, Cable-TV and Hollywood get to overload e-streets while making money and not paying anything for construction or usage of that local infrastructure because that is freedom." seems rather ridiculous to me, especially since in many a place cable-TV lines are alongside internet lines, and e.g. ISP I am currently at offers a 200Mbit/s internet connection with cable-TV line, which I would assume is making use of internet connection to tune and cable-TV line to stream. Not that IT adverse myself, but I would say that IT literate enough that I know that online gaming, cloud-based stuff and even surfing (you know, not being on one page for 10 minutes or so) usually slow down a lot when there is a flow of monster trucks in the local e-street, for which it wasn't designed to handle.
Do you mean that small contents slow down under big contents on one PC or small contents on some PC slow down when other PCs in network start to use big contents?
My connection = 50Mbps. Other customers of my provider use big contents too, but I don't feel problems, my speed = 50Mbps. I feel problems sometime only from speed limits on servers. Every server have speed limitation on line "server-client". For example 10 pages on youtube will be opened much longer than 1 page.
On the other hand I can feel problems if there will be opened a lot of contents on my PC.
Neither actually, with perceived meaning of the word "network" to mean homeside network (sort of on same side of home-router as home PC).
But yes, I am on about that immediate network behind the home PC and/or router point, looking from position of the user's end.
Myself, I am not complaining about my connection tho, since I work nights so I am online usually when others at work, school, or asleep. And I just tried yesterday a localish speed-test at around 8 o'clock in the evening, which showed 33ms and below 6Mbit/s download, whereas e.g. now it shows 26ms, 102 Mbit/s down, and at both tests around 6Mbit/s up. So not much an issue to me based from those tests. But if we talk that soon every household wants to be able to have several HD streams in and out, then from what I understand the issue of "priority" of individual's user data volume traffic would be about the same issue, which is relevant to many still and that in some cases probably for years to come, aggregated 2Mbit/s lines or so.
Btw, I've been online gaming for some time now, meaning e.g. http://classic.xfire.com/profile/rsdale/
as you can see, year 2006, so stuff around issues of proper use of firewall to limit programs using the internet connection for stuff, and so on, are not new to me. And I am on that 100Mbit/s only recently, less than a year actually.
33ms and below 6Mbit/s download
26ms, 102 Mbit/s down
It show that router of your provider, or routers after your provider are overloaded in first case. It is a question of probability of simultaneous use of routers by you and other customers. The router is overloaded at the time of the maximum use. You pay full money to your provider, but your provider can't give you right speed full time 🙁 It may be problem not on side of provider. It may be problem after provider.
Ping 33ms and 26ms is ok, it depends on the "map" which was chosen by routers in the first and in the second cases.
Well, it was one of the quick speed test. I would guess that I would automatically get allocated more bandwidth during peak-hour if I were to start downloading something bigger, but of course, the argument of that they shouldn't advertise 100Mbit/s when such isn't even 10% during peak-hour is easily made. Tho to be honest, I wouldn't mind 6Mbit/s with 100Mbit/s advertised even if it were the only time of day I am on, as long the latency is low, but I understand that in terms of market and stuff it can make little sense for the end-customer to have 6Mbit/s paying for 100Mbit/s while there is like 10Mbit/s on offer from the same ISP for half price of the one with 100Mbit/s (if he understood that much). Tho, not saying that every router around is top-notch and within capacity, just mentioning that I wouldn't be surprised if there is some sort of script going on, you know, not forcing delayed downloads just because another line is on, as to get the it done quick (but as I pointed out, imo a bit an issue with them basically constant streams).
Second problem, that you wrote about falling of speed because of HD users.
Any provider doesn't use speed of trunk links at 100% because it can lead to lag of the equipment. It is fact from design. What about priority? HD users and other users have identical priority. Router make main connection between you and worldwide. Router work under TCP/IP protocol. This protocol cut your message or HD info on big quantity of pieces. The router processes those pieces which came first. At the same time it can process pieces of HD and not HD info without priority.
For example:
HD info = pieces 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
Not HD info = pieces a,b,c
The router can process as follows: 1,a,2,3,b,4,c,5,6,7,8,9
Not HD info was first to be transmited in worldwide.
HD can't slow down not HD because trunk links and routers are not used at 100%. Information is transmitted through a large number of routers before it is delivered, but written above is fair for all routers and whole network.
In other words, I do not get stable
Architecture of network is based on switches and routers. Switches and routers have uplinks and downlinks. Customers use downlinks. For example your provider have 1 switch with 24 downlink ports (100Mbps each) and 2 uplink ports (1Gbps each). This switch can connect 24 customers as you (100x24 = 2,4Gbps). This switch must be connected by 1 uplink with router (1 Gbps). In this case 2,4Gbps > 1Gbps, yes, it's problem if all customers will use traffic as much as possible. But the probability of such event is minimum. At worst only a half of customers use connection at the same time. The part from them doesn't use traffic maximum (they use real speed Switch is connected with router. It is uplink for switch and downlink for router. For example router have 24 downlinks (1 Gbps each) and 2 uplinks (10Gbps each). It can connect 24 switches... and next story for router the same as for switch.
How do you calculate that probability? If all 24 happen to have the same daily hours, you know, going to work and stuff, and happen to all sit at the PC in the evening and all perhaps even have families sharing those connections, then that doesn't sound as unlikely that with preferred video-content it can even overload the 100Mbit/s lines, which of course are not the same as 2Mbit/s where high data traffic is way less than some constant HD streams or so.
And what I am on about is that if my data traffic usage is after all easily below 10giga a month, and someone has a data traffic usage of more than 10giga a day, then I do not understand what is supposed to be democratic about my worsened latency due to after all high data traffic volume, if I understand correctly.
Theory know 3 main formulas of calculations of probability. Each one good in different cases, but results very similar often. I know it from university (course "Theory of Mass Service"). Result of calculation strongly depends on total quantity of customers. For examle, I see right now one interesting thing in internet, but for phones. 10 phones in office demand 3 external lines to have quality phone communication with external world. 100 phones demand 7 external lines!!!
But I never used that formulas.
Methods of calculations that I use are different because my customers have another specifics in the field of communication. I mean difference between home provider and government companies.
Yes, it's not fair. You use less traffic than other customers, but you pay equally 🙁
Try to use more!!! 🙂
As you basically said yourself, e.g. with a call-center those 7 external lines probably wouldn't (have been) sufficient because that formula apparently assumes that not everyone in the office is using a phone at the same time, and/or that many a phone conversation is internal (from office to office in the same company).
After having been some time on laptop with data capped connection, I am sort of used to not using much bandwidth. Anyhow, paying for the first year of contracted two only half the normal price of the 100Mbit/s line, with possibility to switch to lower rate with end of the first year. But I could probably look up research projects, since I am not even using CPU anywhere near capacity e.g. at the moment here listening to music from online, surfing pages, ...
Who cares about talking about net neutrality as such, well:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/02/technology/isis-jack-dorsey-twitter/index.html
The part about a company deleting comments seems a good example, as mentioned in comment there. Basically, if Twitter were used normally by political militant slave-trader groups, then it would be infringing on proclaimed neutrality. But since they aren't, well, only one group getting to promote themselves would be biased, meaning also not neutral as such.
You are right 🙁
Some internet companies are not neutral. They use their benefit when it's possible. I can understand similar actions from governments if info is dangerous for people. But commercial companies shouldn't do so. Actions of many Internet companies irritate me 🙁
For example:
I want to download free program. I download it and start to instal. One of the installation windows include offer to install other applications too: "mail.ru" as start page, searcher "yandex", some bars in browser. What the???!! I cancel this offer before continue of installation of main program. But some people don't know PC good, they will install all that installation window offer. I can call that programs "parasitic programs". Some of "parasitic programs" very strong. I tried to delete 2 "parasitic programs" of developer "Mail.ru". It's not a virus, 100%. I tried to delete via:
- control panel of OS;
- deleting with "Shift+Delete" in program files;
- CC cleaner.
Everytime my OS started to cry about allert, that something try to damage my PC. Allert from my own actions? I just want to delete 2 programs... Everytime I deleted that programs and they came back within 5 minutes again. Again, and again, and again...
It's not virus. It's programs of big company "Mail.ru". But why Mail.ru try to control my PC so hard?!
And not only Mail.ru
I would count that among things eventually concerning consumer rights, anti-trust laws regarding cartels and similar. You may have heard about the thing with EU in Brusel going nuts about such a thing as Microsoft pushing one specific web-browser, their own, with the OS.
There is also stuff such as DRM and EAC, but these being rather specific, unlike mass-Windows etc.
E.g. myself, I prefer a non-Windows firewall, not that I would think that Microsoft is completely clueless, but just because they know e.g. "Adobe" is alright doesn't mean I want any e.g. Adobe program, even if myself installed, do whatever in the background, using internet connection, without me having set it to check regularly for update and such. And Microsoft doesn't really seem to account for that "user preference" (which arguably is basic IT-PC literacy but not really needed if someone uses the PC merely to play some flash games and listen to music).
But yeah, the one pushing a programe which has nothing to do with the programe, seems more often than not biased. Of course, if someone offers an all-round package service, and did put serious effort into analyzing from what can be offered (for free or for a charge) and that all with proper criteria, then the situation is rather different to when with purchase of a car you have to opt out at the car dealer to not get a garage with it. What the one "pushing" some more would probably argue that the situation is one of a guy road-side offering pedestrians small brochures with leaflet in it, and the premise being to get to be known with proof of product as to do something perhaps even bigger. While I personally can understand that, I do think that in terms of IT and consumer products, having to opt-out even with web browser modification or add-on seems certainly a bit too much. Also, clunking up people's PCs with stuff all wanting CPU to do some work or so, not really appearing as if with understanding of consumer end-product and experience as such.