The problem is that nobody believes Verizon.

Nobody believes Netflix. As for what started this debate it was;

What does loss of net neutrality mean for volunteer computing?

It means nothing. So why is this a topic in every section of the board; what is the agenda?

This is no different than the ArsTechnica article I linked earlier; merely from a different source.

No that is a debate between those who know the industry not a one sided blog. All of you experts should take it over there where it belongs. Broadband reports has a team crunching SETI BTW.

I ask why there aren't as many topics about the wireless end of the business selling fast lanes ESPN Eyes Subsidizing Wireless-Data Plans These topics are way over the heads of 99 and 44/100% of the population. Just reading the posts shows this to be true. You know it, I know it, we both know what this is really about.


Net neutrality has been gone for 7 months and you not only can get WU from SETI you can still post on this supposed forum. If net neutrality comes back only dancing cat video will suffer so go ahead bring it back. I don't care just don't blow smoke about what it is.

---

I was just on DSL reports a site for broadband geeks from all sides in the business. Don't let the name DSL fool you; when the site was setup DSL was cutting edge. Anyway if you want to get an idea of how complicated this is with he said she said take a look at the thread about the Verizon Netflix blame game. Verizon: Our Review Shows No Congestion; Netflix to Blame.

DSL Reports is an excellent site.
I have been on it for years.
If you want unvarnished truth.....you can find it there.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

The problem is that nobody believes Verizon.

Nobody believes Netflix. As for what started this debate it was;

Funny, the "believing Netflix" argument is irrelevant. This is about an ISP, Comcast and Verizon, going after a content provider, Netflix, for more money. Verizon should be going after their ISP or their backbone provider, as should have Comcast. Plain and simple they went after the wrong side, regardless if Netflix is guilty of playing games or not.

What does loss of net neutrality mean for volunteer computing?

It means nothing. So why is this a topic in every section of the board; what is the agenda?

It means everything, as I've outlined to you already. If ISPs are allowed to demand money from content providers, SETI@home being one such provider of content, then this can have dire consequences for distributed computing. The agenda is to stop this from happening. One would think that is quite clear.

Sidenote: I notice you always bring up everyone else's agenda and question it. You, yourself, have an agenda. We all have agendas.

This is no different than the ArsTechnica article I linked earlier; merely from a different source.

No that is a debate between those who know the industry not a one sided blog.

Funny. Have you even read the comments on Ars? There's plenty of supporters for the likes of Verizon and Comcast. The comments on DSL Reports are much the same as the comments on Ars.

Again, the two links are no different; they both tell the same story. Verizon is attempting to claim that the problem isn't their side because their network is fast, when clearly their access to others is the choke point.

All of you experts should take it over there where it belongs.

Translation: I'm tired of you kicking my ass and showing my lack of understanding, and I don't know how much more I can troll you while looking like I have a point.

That there's people on DSL Reports arguing in favor for the likes of Verizon and Comcast doesn't mean their views are worth considering if they're too short sighted to understand the impact of what they are arguing for.

Broadband reports has a team crunching SETI BTW

So does Ars.

I ask why there aren't as many topics about the wireless end of the business selling fast lanes ESPN Eyes Subsidizing Wireless-Data Plans These topics are way over the heads of 99 and 44/100% of the population. Just reading the posts shows this to be true. You know it, I know it, we both know what this is really about.

[shrug] Probably because the internet itself is larger than wireless providers. Allowing ISPs to double-dip and go after content providers seems like an obviously larger egregious violation of fairness. Also because it isn't about selling fast lanes. If Verizon and Comcast want to charge their subscribers more for faster access, and use those profits to invest in their own networks, no one has a problem with it. At issue is Comcast and Verizon going after the likes of Netflix for more money.

Net neutrality has been gone for 7 months and you not only can get WU from SETI you can still post on this supposed forum. If net neutrality comes back only dancing cat video will suffer so go ahead bring it back. I don't care just don't blow smoke about what it is.

Clearly you have enough smoke in your face that you need to put down the pipe and back away from it.

That the net neutrality order was struck down 7 months ago isn't indicative of anything beyond no one has been able to capitalize on it in such a period of time. <sigh> And again, the potential for abuse of paid interconnects between content providers like Netflix and ISPs opens the way for much more than just dancing cat videos.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make that for you.

I was just on DSL reports a site for broadband geeks from all sides in the business. Don't let the name DSL fool you; when the site was setup DSL was cutting edge. Anyway if you want to get an idea of how complicated this is with he said she said take a look at the thread about the Verizon Netflix blame game. Verizon: Our Review Shows No Congestion; Netflix to Blame.

DSL Reports is an excellent site.
I have been on it for years.
If you want unvarnished truth.....you can find it there.

Agreed... however, even the DSL Reports site is saying the same thing my link to ArsTechnica was saying: Verizon says it's not their network that's the problem, everyone else questions the truthiness of their claim.

If you want unvarnished truth.....you can find it there.

Alas there is the truth according to CATV, there the truth according to TPC, there are many truths from those in the know. SETI may know about ET communication but not much about terrestrial communication.

Agreed... however, even the DSL Reports site is saying the same thing my link to ArsTechnica was saying:

That is a totally disingenuous statement.

I will admit I wasn't paying attention to the neutrality situation and didn't know it was ruled illegal and fast lanes were put in place. The way it is now seems to be working as the ISP said. They will build a new lane not block what is.

---

If you want unvarnished truth.....you can find it there.

Alas there is the truth according to CATV, there the truth according to TPC, there are many truths from those in the know. SETI may know about ET communication but not much about terrestrial communication.

Right, that's why they're unable to blank out noisy workunits from terrestrial locations. [/s]

Agreed... however, even the DSL Reports site is saying the same thing my link to ArsTechnica was saying:

That is a totally disingenuous statement.

Of course it wasn't disingenuous. They were both saying the same thing:

DSL Reports: "Verizon: Our Review Shows No Congestion; Netflix to Blame"

ArsTechncia: "There’s “no congestion,” Verizon says, despite continued Netflix problems"

Perhaps it's in the way you're reading both sites that makes them seem different?

I will admit I wasn't paying attention to the neutrality situation and didn't know it was ruled illegal and fast lanes were put in place. The way it is now seems to be working as the ISP said. They will build a new lane not block what is.

Fine. Build a new lane. Don't expect content providers to pay for it then turn around and charge users for the same link twice.

Look, if Verizon and Comcast were Netflix's ISP and they said to Netflix that they're using too much bandwidth and must increase it, that would be one thing. However, Netflix isn't a customer of Verizon and Comcast, therefore they should not be negotiating contracts directly with content providers. If Verizon and Comcast customers are experiencing issues accessing content at an acceptable performance rate, then Verizon and Comcast need to look into investing in their networks, including their own choke points to the backbone providers to alleviate the issue.

... I will admit I wasn't paying attention to the neutrality situation and didn't know it was ruled illegal and fast lanes were put in place. The way it is now seems to be working as the ISP said. They will build a new lane not block what is.

Except... My personal suspicion is that they would 'change their operating' whereby rather than increase capacity as the paying users use, they instead ONLY "add new 'fast' lanes" only when whatever strangled content providers succumb to extra extortion...


At the moment, we have an uncensored content delivery system whereby the end users pay for a connection and can receieve anythign they like on the connection they have paid for. Net neutrality and "common carrier" requirements require that.

However, various carriers see the possibility of a good profit hike in additionally charging content providers beyond the reasonable costs already paid for just the physical connection to a local carrier.


s@h has a 1Gbit/s connection to the internet. That could be switched off or censored out of existence if additional payments were demanded for carrying s@h data onwards across the various intermediate carriers before it gets to your home PCs...

This is where I believe the 'common carrier' status of the internet has to be kept sacrosanct. There is far too much creative scope for abuse as soon as you start censoring connections for extra special charges...


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

I was just on DSL reports a site for broadband geeks from all sides in the business. Don't let the name DSL fool you; when the site was setup DSL was cutting edge. Anyway if you want to get an idea of how complicated this is with he said she said take a look at the thread about the Verizon Netflix blame game. Verizon: Our Review Shows No Congestion; Netflix to Blame.

DSL Reports is an excellent site.
I have been on it for years.
If you want unvarnished truth.....you can find it there.

Agreed... however, even the DSL Reports site is saying the same thing my link to ArsTechnica was saying: Verizon says it's not their network that's the problem, everyone else questions the truthiness of their claim.

It all depends on where Verizon says their network ends.

I'm guessing they assume it ends at the jack on the back of their router at the peering collocation. Everyone else assumes it ends at the jack of the router they are peering with. So that cable between Verizon and ??? isn't Verizon's in their mind, and everyone else thinks it is. And we have located the congestion.

Verizon refuses to buy enough connectivity for its customers, period the end. Oh and they are raising prices on the consumer $5 a month. They get away with this crap because of the legalese their scumbag lawyers stick in the 100 page fine print you must agree to despite there being no other option by law as they are a monopoly in their service area. All of this is fine with the government as it just gets them bigger campaign bribes.

---

I was just on DSL reports a site for broadband geeks from all sides in the business. Don't let the name DSL fool you; when the site was setup DSL was cutting edge. Anyway if you want to get an idea of how complicated this is with he said she said take a look at the thread about the Verizon Netflix blame game. Verizon: Our Review Shows No Congestion; Netflix to Blame.

DSL Reports is an excellent site.
I have been on it for years.
If you want unvarnished truth.....you can find it there.

Agreed... however, even the DSL Reports site is saying the same thing my link to ArsTechnica was saying: Verizon says it's not their network that's the problem, everyone else questions the truthiness of their claim.

It all depends on where Verizon says their network ends.

I'm guessing they assume it ends at the jack on the back of their router at the peering collocation. Everyone else assumes it ends at the jack of the router they are peering with. So that cable between Verizon and ??? isn't Verizon's in their mind, and everyone else thinks it is. And we have located the congestion.

I think that's an excellent point, Gary. However, it seems that Verizon and Comcast think that making Netflix pay for faster access to their customers is an acceptable form of business when it is not.

If Verizon says their network ends at the jack on the back of their router, and that choke point is over-saturated with packets to their customers, then they need to look into opening up that choke point. ISPs are already charging their customers more per bit than most other countries. They should use that capital to invest in their networks.

Except... My personal suspicion is that they would 'change their operating' whereby rather than increase capacity as the paying users use, they instead ONLY "add new 'fast' lanes" only when whatever strangled content providers succumb to extra extortion...

Maybe yes but that is not what is happening now. Netflix has paid but has to wait until their fast lane is built. Yes there are legitimate concerns but why is it such a hot topic here where there is a lack of understanding? Why isn't the wireless situation which is exactally the same totally ignored? I often use wireless to connect to SETI.

---

Verizon refuses to buy enough connectivity for its customers,

I'm a Verizon customer and don't need them to spend millions of my money so others can watch dancing cat videos. You want net neutrality fine go back to buffering cat videos. That is the way it is. Or should big brother confiscate the network?

---

Except... My personal suspicion is that they would 'change their operating' whereby rather than increase capacity as the paying users use, they instead ONLY "add new 'fast' lanes" only when whatever strangled content providers succumb to extra extortion...

Maybe yes but that is not what is happening now. Netflix has paid but has to wait until their fast lane is built.

If it's not happening now, it will never, ever, happen in the future. [/s]

Yes there are legitimate concerns but why is it such a hot topic here where there is a lack of understanding?

Because Dr. Korpela is one of the Project Scientists and the outcome of this proposal can have very real implications for him and his line of work. Perhaps the average SETIzen has a lack of understanding of the issue, but I think Dr. Korpela has outlined exactly why it concerns him (see my quote above from his blog post).

Why isn't the wireless situation which is exactally the same totally ignored? I often use wireless to connect to SETI.

I fail to see the wireless situation as being the same as this issue. That suggests that one of us doesn't understand the issue. I'm sure from your POV that would be me. I think my words and my arguments have shown otherwise.

Verizon refuses to buy enough connectivity for its customers,

I'm a Verizon customer and don't need them to spend millions of my money so others can watch dancing cat videos.

They're going to need to spend those millions anyway. The market is moving too quickly and the content is getting larger and larger every decade. They need to invest or die out. Perhaps instead of buying out other companies for billions (yes, that's billions with a b), they could have invested the millions (with an M) to improve their network.

You want net neutrality fine go back to buffering cat videos. That is the way it is. Or should big brother confiscate the network?

Net neutrality isn't about preventing Verizon from building a fast lane. Bringing back network neutrality won't be the reason for buffered videos. That will be an issue with the ISP and their backbone provider.

I was just on DSL reports a site for broadband geeks from all sides in the business. Don't let the name DSL fool you; when the site was setup DSL was cutting edge. Anyway if you want to get an idea of how complicated this is with he said she said take a look at the thread about the Verizon Netflix blame game. Verizon: Our Review Shows No Congestion; Netflix to Blame.

DSL Reports is an excellent site.
I have been on it for years.
If you want unvarnished truth.....you can find it there.

Agreed... however, even the DSL Reports site is saying the same thing my link to ArsTechnica was saying: Verizon says it's not their network that's the problem, everyone else questions the truthiness of their claim.

It all depends on where Verizon says their network ends.

I'm guessing they assume it ends at the jack on the back of their router at the peering collocation. Everyone else assumes it ends at the jack of the router they are peering with. So that cable between Verizon and ??? isn't Verizon's in their mind, and everyone else thinks it is. And we have located the congestion.

I think that's an excellent point, Gary. However, it seems that Verizon and Comcast think that making Netflix pay for faster access to their customers is an acceptable form of business when it is not.

If Verizon says their network ends at the jack on the back of their router, and that choke point is over-saturated with packets to their customers, then they need to look into opening up that choke point. ISPs are already charging their customers more per bit than most other countries. They should use that capital to invest in their networks.

Most ISP's, final mile, are at least a decade behind in their need to expand capacity. Verizon stopped installing FIOS into new areas. They found out their customers actually would use that increased capacity 24/7. That wasn't part of their business plan and they can't afford the peering charges. At the same time they got into a pissing match with other ISP's about how fast the connection was. Damn stupidity on the part of the marketing department. Now the legal department has to pull their butt out of the fire.

---

Verizon refuses to buy enough connectivity for its customers,

I'm a Verizon customer and don't need them to spend millions of my money so others can watch dancing cat videos. You want net neutrality fine go back to buffering cat videos. That is the way it is. Or should big brother confiscate the network?

You don't need to.

Your ISP should offer a 'light user' plan whereby your end connection is lower capacity and so pays a smaller proportion than the higher paying cat watching users.


There are various good technical ways of letting this all work easily and efficiently. Shame that greed and Market manipulation gets in the way.

The internet is too valuable a common infrastructure to allow it to be nobbled by and censored by monopolies...


Keep searchin' while you can,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Because Dr. Korpela is one of the Project Scientists and the outcome of this proposal can have very real implications for him and his line of work.

With all due respect this is not SETIs area of expertise; SETIs talking points are nothing new. They parrot the Netflix argument. IF SETI and others do have a problem the Republican FCC board members said they will address it IF it happens. Interesting Berkley is towing the liberal line, who would have thought they would go that way.

What will you want done if neutrality is reinstated and the dancing cat videos once again buffer?

---

batter up said:

to spend millions of my money

Dat Be Funny. You Be Richie Rich eh? Wowsa. Dat GOoD fO a Quick Neck Dance.


Got Bufferin'?

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Your ISP should offer a 'light user' plan

I'm not a light user, I'm also not a bandwidth hog. What you are going to get is pay by the byte. Electricity is sold by the KWH so why not bandwidth by the byte? Don't mess with the ISPs you can't win short of confiscating the network.

Thank you, I love dancing cat videos. The reason the Internet was invented.

---

I was just on DSL reports a site for broadband geeks from all sides in the business. Don't let the name DSL fool you; when the site was setup DSL was cutting edge. Anyway if you want to get an idea of how complicated this is with he said she said take a look at the thread about the Verizon Netflix blame game. Verizon: Our Review Shows No Congestion; Netflix to Blame.

DSL Reports is an excellent site.
I have been on it for years.
If you want unvarnished truth.....you can find it there.

Agreed... however, even the DSL Reports site is saying the same thing my link to ArsTechnica was saying: Verizon says it's not their network that's the problem, everyone else questions the truthiness of their claim.

It all depends on where Verizon says their network ends.

I'm guessing they assume it ends at the jack on the back of their router at the peering collocation. Everyone else assumes it ends at the jack of the router they are peering with. So that cable between Verizon and ??? isn't Verizon's in their mind, and everyone else thinks it is. And we have located the congestion.

I think that's an excellent point, Gary. However, it seems that Verizon and Comcast think that making Netflix pay for faster access to their customers is an acceptable form of business when it is not.

If Verizon says their network ends at the jack on the back of their router, and that choke point is over-saturated with packets to their customers, then they need to look into opening up that choke point. ISPs are already charging their customers more per bit than most other countries. They should use that capital to invest in their networks.

Most ISP's, final mile, are at least a decade behind in their need to expand capacity. Verizon stopped installing FIOS into new areas. They found out their customers actually would use that increased capacity 24/7. That wasn't part of their business plan and they can't afford the peering charges. At the same time they got into a pissing match with other ISP's about how fast the connection was. Damn stupidity on the part of the marketing department. Now the legal department has to pull their butt out of the fire.

Indeed it is a pickle. Though I question the part of not being able to afford the peering charges. That's their core business, and as such, they need to invest in R&D as much as possible to figure the problem out.

Because Dr. Korpela is one of the Project Scientists and the outcome of this proposal can have very real implications for him and his line of work.

With all due respect this is not SETIs area of expertise; SETIs talking points are nothing new. They parrot the Netflix argument.

SETI is not "parroting" any argument. They are legitimately concerned about their "business" model (for lack of better terms as SETI is obviously not a business).

IF SETI and others do have a problem the Republican FCC board members said they will address it IF happens. Interesting Berkley is towing the liberal line, who would have thought they would go that way.

But it has already happened with the Netflix situation. I know I wouldn't keep waiting for "if it happens" if it were me. Besides, the FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler, is a former head for the cable industry. Talk about conflicting interest now? This isn't a Republican vs. Democrat thing, though I do find it interesting that people with conservative views will frame it in such a way.

What will you want done if neutrality is reinstated and the dancing cat videos once again buffer?

Net neutrality is not going to be the catalyst that brings back buffered videos. Net neutrality is going to ensure that I don't have to pay for those videos twice; once through my ISP and again as a cost passed to me through my video subscriptions.