Watch: Burger King explains Net Neutrality with Whopper sandwiches

again, i build out these types of solutions. i’m familiar with packet shaping and QoS. i know exactly how they work.

Google pays for every bite of traffic they serve, consumers pay for every bite of traffic they consume. it could be any company and any type of traffic. no one is using anything they haven’t overpaid for.

QoS can and already does this in a neutral way, just not for a single companies service. It works and works better and faster than provider specific throttling. the only thing it doesn’t do better is discriminate based on company to allow extorting more money. The type of packet filtering and routing that is needed to implement fast lanes is much less efficient and has much greater overhead and cost and doesn’t work nearly as well.

1 Like

I sure hope you don’t work for the company I work for, because you don’t seem to understand how companies today are throttling specific traffic types.

The amount of data being served wouldn’t change in my example. The amount of time it takes to serve it would change, very little, for one app. giving other application types (arguably much more important and time sensitive ones) the ability to get their data to the subscriber. This is where things get iffy. If done correctly by the provider it can be a win for all the consumers with little to no effect on the content provider and their content (Youtube in this example)

Yes and no. QoS today is only applied to to heavy data users. So it’s effects on helping out this problem are very little. More drastic implementation of QoS are needed. Application specific QoS could be much more effective in theory. Again, as many others on this blog, you assume the worst out of that like extorting money. My argument is that a common ground could be found that would benefit the majority and while giving a negligible effect to the minority.

It doesn’t just sound bad, it’s totally catastrophic. It completely redefines the service being sold as “Internet Service” and completely redefines what it means for a company to “be on the Internet” or for a consumer to have “Internet Access”. It creates a total and complete market failure where an external third party not part of a transaction imposes conditions that will dramatically impact the market.

But, users using their data for consumption not originally in the over subscription model make up close to 50% of all traffic to mobile devices and cause the entire model for how data is purchased and sold to be incorrect now which can cause severe congestion. All from the operating model not evolving with changes in the market fast enough.

Rewrote that. Totally not dependent on knowing where the data is coming from. Which is the entire point.

Without NN, a provider could employ some tactics to pick market winners and losers or charge a second time for the same bandwidth in a attempt to re-balance it’s over subscription model instead of changing the model.

Nothing stops that mobile provider from putting QOS on ALL video, independent of source. It’s when they put a restriction on YouTube but not Vimeo for the exact same thing that problems arise. Say, Verizon making YouTube and DirectTV lower priority than Go 90, or AT&T making YouTube and Go 90 lower than DirectTV. Just because YouTube is more popular than the others.

Because, your original analogy was simply wrong. You’ve double and tippled down on that without responding to any of the points about why the analogy falls apart and without any points pointing out why the other posters points fall apart. That’s the talking past. If I got it wrong in may comparison (it happens), point it out. If the part countering your statement got it wrong, point that out. But, just stating the same thing again and again is talking past without addressing the other statements.

1 Like

what? the answer is in my quote you replied to…packet shaping and QoS, both of which I brought into this conversation. that is how everyone does it worldwide currently. i sure hope i don’t work for the same company as well.

this is how the internet already works using QoS, it is a solved problem. I state this above twice in two separate comments. You aren’t really reading my posts before saying they are wrong are you? QoS already shapes traffic in a neutral way, much more efficiently than vendor specific packet shaping, the only thing it doesn’t do is discriminate based on company.

nope. all ISPs implement QoS as do all peers and backbone routers. it works on the highest traffic points on the internet as well as neighborhood cable nodes. Even my home router has QoS. Application specific packet shaping can never be more efficient or effective because of HOW it has to be implemented.

Again it is a less efficient solution to a problem that is already solved. I’m not making assumptions about motives nor am i making a worse mistake by pretending there is some narrow hypothetical case in which this could potentially make things better and not worse without considering the bigger implications.

1 Like

It does get the point across to the unwashed masses, the non-geeks that net neutrality is all about extortion. But since I love bad analogies, here’s mine:

Imagine a pneumatic tube system (I know, right? A series of tubes!) that links restaurants to customers. Now, people like ordering Whoppers, so one of the relay stations comes up with the idea of charging the restaurants and not just the customers. If BK pays a little extra, they will make sure their burgers go through faster. But since the capsules are opaque and only have a delivery address, they have to stop each packet and take a look to see what is in it, then decide based on whether it’s a Whopper or just a salad. Oh yeah, and if it’s a salad if the sender paid for preferential treatment.

1 Like

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KJXzkUH72cY

1 Like

@anon28219805 did a great job of providing adequate documentation and expanding on my points better than I could.

Yes they are. Of course they are. In fact, name one that hasn’t proposed, supported or enacted horrible, invasive, anti-competitive, realpolitik policies, license agreements and legislation. And I’m not talking about some local-level b-Corp ISP set up in defiance of the two, count them, two over-wire ISPs that have exclusively monopolies over the vast majority of US households. To believe that they are doing this for their consumers’ benefit ignores the way they operate 100% of the time.

1 Like

I’d also like to note from the RAND white paper I cited, the conclusion from page 40:

Is it time now to start thinking about a new and possibly non-existent public utility, a common user digital data communication plant designed specifically for the transmission of digital data among a large set of subscribers?

This is exactly what exists TODAY.

The ISPs were envisioned by internet pioneers such as Paul Baran to be public utilities, to be regulated under the conventional definitions of a “public utility” at the time the paper was written in 1962.

A reasonable legal understanding of the context itself suggests that the internet was to be understood from a design-perspective as a common-carrier.

There was no differentiation that basic packet-switching was anything other than the self-apparent function of a public utility.

Why? Because there was no concept at the time in 1962 of a different regulatory class of data-provider!

What this means is that the concept of ISP providers as regulated Title 2 utilities was rhetorically understood to mean that common-carrier status was inseparably designed into the engineering infrastructure of the internet itself!

Which also means the FCC argument about reclassifying ISPs as something other than Title 2 natural monopolies is demonstrably FALSE.

I only wish more proof like this could be shown to Congress and the public. The FCC is historically, legally and administratively wrong.

4 Likes

See my reply below regarding internet architecture.

vvvvv

Interesting as a time capsule. Dad looks like Biff from BTTF…

2 Likes

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.