Technicalities of Net Neutrality

No video

Technicalities of Net Neutrality - Computerphile

Рет қаралды 62,563

Күн бұрын

Audible free book: www.audible.com...
What's the technical side of the net neutrality debate? We look at how a it works with a fictitious video streaming site. Dr Richard Mortier has the details.
Routers & KZfaq Offline: • Routers, The Internet ...
Network Stack: • Network Stacks and the...
Pink VR Simulator: • The (pink) VR Simulato...
Undecidability Series: • The History of Undecid...
/ computerphile
/ computer_phile
This video was filmed and edited by Sean Riley.
Computer Science at the University of Nottingham: bit.ly/nottscom...
Computerphile is a sister project to Brady Haran's Numberphile. See the full list of Brady's video projects at: bit.ly/bradycha...

Пікірлер: 135

@lmiddleman 9 жыл бұрын

Contrary to the title, this video says nothing about net neutrality.

@greenzoid2 9 жыл бұрын

More like you just have this pre-conceived notion of what it is from the media that you didn't realise they are in fact discussing the "technicalities" behind net neutrality.

@lmiddleman 9 жыл бұрын

greenzoid2 So then, a video on oil production is about global warming? Or a video discussing vaccine production is then about Ebola? Also, perhaps some neophytes find this video randomly, but I'd wager most subscribers to this channel know a fair lot about the subject already.

@Wizznilliam 9 жыл бұрын

lmiddleman What were you expecting? They are talking about how data over and across networks is paid for. That is exactly what the net neutrality debate is about.

@lmiddleman 9 жыл бұрын

Will J The video simply fails to pull the thing together, to explain the disagreement between some network providers and neutrality advocates, and whether either side has a technical leg to stand on. Had the title simply been "Packet and Money Flow in the Internet: A Primer", there would be no complaint.

@roq99 9 жыл бұрын

lmiddleman It also fails to address the governmental control/ lobby aspect of it and the type of power it can give to people.

@R0nBurgundy 9 жыл бұрын

This just me or did this not cover net neutrality at all?!?! Net neutrality is treating all data as data and not changing more for different types of data. Customers pay there ISP for a connection to the internet, content providers also pay to be connected to the internet. ISP should not be allowed to throttle different types of data because they want to prioritize different serveries (such as there own) over competitors services. This is the real issue!

@DrRChandra 9 жыл бұрын

What they cover in this video is more along the lines of the reason people are calling for 'net neutrality. They see their "Netfilm" service slow down, and they conclude the ISP is throttling, when in fact it might be a peering dispute between tier 2 and tier 1 provider quibbling about what interconnect capacity they should have. The interconnect becomes congested because one side, typically the tier 1, allows it to become so by not adding capacity (more links between the two). In that sense, they're sort of extorting money saying, hey, we're not upgrading our links until you pay us a premium. Also it sounds at times like "Netfilm" wants free colocation services at the ISPs. Yes, it reduces congestion on interconnect links, but colocation is a service just like any other, and it shouldn't be free. Few of the articles on the Web seem to mention this aspect of the debate.

@R0nBurgundy 9 жыл бұрын

rchandraonline If i pay for a 50mb connection i expect to receive all of it whether i an streaming a film, emailing a friend, downloading pictures of cats or anything else I after all have payed for it! the problem is the overselling of internet by ISP's presuming that there customers will only use a few percent of there allocated bandwidth but the increased poulartity in such services as netflix and youtube has meant people use much more of there allocated bandwidth. It doesn't matter what there data arrangements in the background. Remember a lot of ISP's also provide there own video services,TV and netflix is a competitor to there TV packages. Therefore it makes business sense to try and force there competitor to pay more increasing the cost to the user and encouraging the user to stay keep with the ISP's TV packages! ISP's are just trying to double dip and charge for the same thing twice! Rember it won't be netflix incuring this extra cost as the extra cost will just get past onto us, the consumer! What ISP's should do is increase the cost of there internet packages!!! However they will not do this as it is better for them to increase the cost the charge netflix so they pass on the cost to you through there subscription fees. This makes there TV packages look better in comparison to netflix and therefore the ISP's will get more more customers buying there TV packages.

@DrRChandra 9 жыл бұрын

...in which case you do not seem to understand anything about best-effort service, committed information rate (CIR), and x percentile (typically x = 90 or x = 95) billing. If you really, really want an unrestricted 50Mbps, buy 50Mbps CIR. I can tell ya, ya ain't payin' anything like $75/mo. for something like that though. Look at your service agreement; I could be wrong, but unless there's something you're not telling us, it's best-effort service. Residential class service is like that. With some exceptions, you get what you pay for in the market. And yes, if you're paying for 50Mbps CIR, chances are fairly good you won't be oversubscribed. Yes, in that case it does in fact matter what agreements are in place "in the background." There is no doubt that there is some conflict of interest if the ISP is also a video content provider. ISPs have been "double dipping" as you put it since commercialization. Otherwise, either content providers end users wouldn't be charged anything. They charge you and me to move bits, and they charge Netflix to move bits. This is nothing new. Granted, some of their tactics of withholding capacity upgrades are shady, bordering on extortion. If you mean U.S. ISPs should increase their prices, I can't agree with that. Compared to a lot of the rest of the world, we are slower and more expensive. The real crying shame is last kilometer access, in that it is very difficult to compel access ISPs to change their practices through market forces. There is no true last km competition, mostly due to government imposed oligopolies (Time Warner and Verizon in my area). BTW...just sayin', you might want to learn the difference between "their," "they're," and "there," and the past tense of "to pay" is spelled "paid."

@TechyBen 9 жыл бұрын

rchandraonline Colocation is an entirely different issue though, is it not? Netfilm pays for the line, they pay for the data. Now companies wish to charge extra (to consumer or Netfilm) than the going rate? For example, neutrality means 100meg of emails costs the same as 100meg of film. Without, are they not charging extra for it being films in the pipe? If it's entirely about charging extra for the "popularity" then we can already charge based on usage. No need to point to specific content or providers, is there?

@DrRChandra 9 жыл бұрын

TechyBen , not at all. It's just that Netflix, or their hypothetical "Netfilm," is an easy, illustrative example for charging based on usage.

@argh523 9 жыл бұрын

This doesn't actually describle net neutrality at all. The core issue is that with net neutrality, no type of data can be discriminated against. What has happend to netfilx is that carriers held the bandwide hostage, releasing it only when netflix agreed to pay more for their traffic than everybody else. That you have to pay more to use more bandwide isn't the issue, it's that carriers want to, in the long run, throttle everybody that doesn't pay the higher rates.

@antivanti 9 жыл бұрын

The main issue of net neutrality isn't even mentioned in this video. That being whether ISPs should be allowed to treat data from different content providers differently. What they are doing is strangling the speed of certain services like NetFlix for instance so that they can then extort money from them by holding their users hostage.

@nosuchthing8 9 жыл бұрын

Indeed

@emilseihmanis 9 жыл бұрын

Am I the only one who can't stand the sound of the marker?

@wexer82 9 жыл бұрын

No you're not. There are many of us out there.

@Garbaz 9 жыл бұрын

I kinda like it (I guess). Well, I dont have any problem with it.

@wexer82 9 жыл бұрын

Garbaz do you prefer it or do you not mind it?

@Garbaz 9 жыл бұрын

***** Let's say it like that: I wouldnt care if he would remove it for the people who dont like it. I full understanding for people who dislike it, I have the same with the smell of kiwis. Even though I love the taste :|

@Zimpfnis 9 жыл бұрын

It's funny you say that, because I love it:) it kind of makes me feel comfortable, as I know I'm on a *phile video.

@moff181 9 жыл бұрын

It's a symbiotic relationship. Without the ISPs, the websites can't function properly. However, without the websites/content, the ISPs are useless.

@taiken64 9 жыл бұрын

Neglected to mention that NetFilm also has to pay to be on the Internet in the first place, either through paying for hosting or maintaining a server farm. Regardless, those are not cheap. Cable networks charge cable companies for access to their networks. The ISPs just got smart and want to establish a precedent of websites paying for access to customers rather than the other way around.

@DSMikeNW 9 жыл бұрын

I do not believe you guys actually addressed what net neutrality is. You explained the way the internet works and how/where money changes hands, but thats pretty much it, you didn't touch what net neutrality is and why is(or is not) important. I would have named the video "Technicalities and business relations of the Internet - Computerphile"

@DevonBernard 9 жыл бұрын

Great video, thank you for sharing your perspective and explanation of Net Neutrality.

@trailkeeper 9 жыл бұрын

It seems like the issue boils down to having a "guarantee of speed". If you pay for 3mb/s then you should have a guarantee of that speed no matter how much traffic is on the rest of your internet/server system. So the average user and high data user should both have a guarantee of speed, that way everybody is satisfied. But if a "server" or system cannot handle more volume of data, like live video passing through, than it was designed for, priority should go to the people who have purchased the speed on that server/system, this ensures the "guarantee of speed". Net neutrality seems to be more of a speed issue than a lack of communication issue. "Smart routing" may disappear which is to get the best efficiency of the system. What is mentioned in the video seems to be a "rewireing of the internet" or "change of the infrastructure of the internet", such as having additional (public/gov?) servers for mass data, perhaps like the "cloud computing" concept.

@NussiRn 9 жыл бұрын

The video doesn't explain anything about Net Neutrality itself.

@DrRChandra 9 жыл бұрын

At the core of the Netflix et al. debate is, are you a network customer or a network peer? It's not really about slowing down some net traffic over others, or (mostly) trying to extract more money out of people or businesses because they become popular. If you send roughly the same amount of traffic as you accept, you're a peer, and the arrangement almost always is (and has for a long time been) SETTLEMENT-FREE PEERING, meaning when it comes time to settling the money, they call it a wash in charging each other and don't exchange actual funds. But if for example you're sending more traffic, you're a lot more like a customer, so the receiver of such traffic feels justified in declaring the relationship as being a customer and not a peer, and therefore will NOT have settlement-free "peering." So this is NOT really a radical change in business practice. Also, as mentioned in the video, so that content can be "close" to the end users, the content providers provide servers for their content in the various ISP network operation centers (NOCs). This is essentially a colocation operation. Likewise, colocation services are anything but free. The ISP providing colocation has to provide building space, power, cooling, fire suppression, security, networking, etc., all of which costs money. If there is any "extortion" it is typically ISPs who refuse to upgrade interconnects until they get paid extra. This is where the end user customer experiences the slowdowns. Interconnect links between those tier 2 and tier 1 ISPs become saturated, and therefore traffic cannot pass as quickly from tier 2 to 1. This is the crux of one of the most visible squabbles, Verizon and Cogent. Netflix is (or was?) a customer of Cogent, and Cogent is having a heckuva time getting ISPs to add ports (and links) to their routers. I'm not saying this is the best arrangement/business practice, just that charging for colocation services and terms of settlement-free peering are nothing new. A lot hinges (as the video mentions) on what customers an ISP has. As a rule of thumb, if their customers are mostly servers, they're semi-obviously going to be sending a lot more than they're receiving. If it's mostly end-users, they're going to be receiving more traffic than sending. If it's a mix of both, then they can probably get some settlement-free arrangements.

@trailkeeper 9 жыл бұрын

If a user pays for a speed it should be guaranteed, regardless of any big users, also this does not seem to be a lack of communication or accesability issue, but one of speed. "Smart Routing" helps the system be more efficient, and this may be needed so that individual users have a guarantee of speed.

@veloxsouth 9 жыл бұрын

Informative, but I don't understand what net neutrality would do to this system, or if you were describing a system that already has net neutrality.

@Durakken 9 жыл бұрын

The opening sentence is highly biased towards the networks as Mortier leaves out that the value of the networks are derived from the fact that there are content providers. In other words a road that leads nowhere is worthless. Likewise a place with no way to get there is worthless as well. The explanation in short is such T1a T1b = balanced value transaction. They derive value from linking with each other. T2 is just another term for the local network that people connect to. T3 is the "end user" in this network model. (T3a -> T2 -> T3b) is faster than (T3a -> T2a -> T2b -> T3b) so it is best to distribute the connection of T3b to serve T3a if possible. The argument for why some seem to think that T2/T1 networks can charge more is that as T3 becomes more popular they take up more bandwidth and as such should be charged more. The reality is that a Network's ability to deliver quicker connections to a popular point increases its value and as such the idea that T3 service providers need to pay more to distribute across the networks is nonsense... And then there is the following... The connection between T3 and T2 is paid for by T3 already, on both sides. It's like you pay for the road to a hub. and I pay for the road to a hub. Several other people pay for their roads to the same hub and they all want to come to me. The Hub owner then goes and says I should pay more for my road because more people want to use my road, even though there requires no change to the road and if I don't they'll set up a gate that will only let 2 people on the road to me at any time. This would be perfectly fine (as they own the hubs), save for the fact that governments have made it so that only one hub owner can exist in a given territory which essentially makes the situation tyranical and blackmail. The solution is either to prevent this gating grom happening OR to allow multiple hubs to be created. ie, Net Neutrality needs to exist or monopolies need to be broken. A third option is that we make a public network, just like we made the roads and the railways public, which are networks as well and as far as I can see should happen.

@FallenBytes 9 жыл бұрын

Also remember that any ISP that is also a content provider won't let "Netfilm" place servers within their network because extortion with the bonus of stifling competition is more profitable than network efficiency.

@nosuchthing8 9 жыл бұрын

This video was WAY too technical. What we want is a video that examines the issues surrounding NN. Start from zero - What would happen if Verizon started their own service, Netfilm and then slowed down Netflix and boosted access to Netfilm. Is this legal in America? Can ISPs start throttling down speeds to content they do not agree with? etc.

@Nichoalsziv 9 жыл бұрын

that was kind of confusing? What does it mean if the traffic is anonymous or not dosent netfilm still have to pay for the increased bandwidth they are using?

@gigaherz_ 9 жыл бұрын

The Net Neutrality idea is that anyone has the same access rights to those channels, no matter the origin. Without net neutrality, service providers would offer to install better equipment and cables, but only allow those who pay extra (or those who are more politically friendly) to use the "fast lanes", which ultimately results in the users believing the other services are worse, while in truth it's the ISPs networks that are hindering them.

@Dayanto 9 жыл бұрын

One problem of losing net neutrality is the issue of "double-dipping". You pay your ISP(internet service provider) to deliver your network traffic to and from others. Netflix pays their own ISP to deliver their traffic to you. However the problem that happens now is thay _your_ ISP is also asking _Netflix_ to pay them money (on top of what they already pay to their own ISP), threatening to slow Netflix down on _your_ end of the internet if they don't. It's an entirely backwards and ridiculous thing to do. John Oliver compared it to a mafia shakedown and I have to agree, it's more or less blackmail. They shouldn't have the right to do this!

@jakeabel2548 9 жыл бұрын

Each router a packet has to go through has a tole fee(I think in the US they have fees when going from state to state). Another way to think of this is each router is another party you have to pay. Netfilm would just pay for the speed once if they when through one router(more like network). With the system on having multiple servers no one needs to charge more to upgrade the hole line going from country to country.

@Nichoalsziv 9 жыл бұрын

It seems to me like Internet providers are trying to offset their costs to who every they can get their grips into. Form having read around it looks like the "fast" lanes would end up as the lanes we have now only someone is paying extra for netlove traffic to go through without begin slowed down. Am i right in thinking that net neutrality is supposed to treat internet as an anonymous service, i.e. a bit is a bit no matter what movie file it is part of and so should cost the cost of a bit not a netlove bit vs a gmail bit.

@jakeabel2548 9 жыл бұрын

Stragemque Net neutrality is just ment to stop the ISP from picking its service to be faster then other services. Not much about being anonymous.

@shelvacu 9 жыл бұрын

You seem to (possibly purposefully?) omit that although Big Services like youtube depend on ISPs to provide connection, ISPs also depend on Big Services to provide service; Can you imagine if you couldn't access youtube from the sprint network? NOBODY would use sprint.

@nosuchthing8 9 жыл бұрын

If Sprint did that, they would off sprintnet, it would be horrible. But most people would pay. Some are locked into multiple year contracts. Others have no competition. Which of course is the point of nn.

@shelvacu 9 жыл бұрын

nosuchthing8 They don't have "no competition". After all, people would likely move houses just to get an ISP that doesnt block certain sites. And, with phones, the contracts almost always have a termination fee, so they're not "locked" per say but rather have some discouragement.

@Eva-lz5ig 6 жыл бұрын

Most of the time people can't move, and there are also duopolies and cooperation between isp's. There is no competition in most of the united states because Verizon, Comcast, ATT, and Time Warner all create agreements to manage customers between them.

@Norpan83 9 жыл бұрын

they completely ignored the neutrality part of net neutrality

@nosuchthing8 9 жыл бұрын

Indeed

@Roboterize 9 жыл бұрын

Netflix-user-tip: If you use a proxy you can access the Netflix content of the proxy-ip-location. E.g. you can watch all American movies and series that are blocked in your country due to copyright restrictions, when you use a US-proxy-adress.

@LoneWolf-wp9dn 9 жыл бұрын

all this is besides the point... quantity of data is going to grow in time anyway ...the ISPs are doing this either because they dont want to give people higher bandwidths and thus invest in more modern infrastructure or because they want a slice of google's/netflix's/facebook's/ pie

@samramdebest 9 жыл бұрын

I thought big host didn't need to pay for their internet only for the equipment. I thought it went like this: the host pays for cables to a few other hosts(or other network stuff) and they can freely send data to those hosts and in return they allow the hosts they are connected to to send data to them(to be redirected to other hosts) or maybe simpler put, you handle my data if I handle your data

@AtomicTankGaming 9 жыл бұрын

1. Users pay Comcast for bandwidth 2. Netflix is a content provider who the USER pays COMCAST to connect to. Netflix also pays their own provider to send out packets to the users. 3. COMCAST in their greed let the packets get slowed down by shitty management of their own network because they feel they are entitled to money from Netflix. This violates net neutrality but the FCC cant do anything about it because they have the ISP under title 1. 4. All we want is for ISP to be under title 2 so that the FCC can threaten action to prevent the greedy companies from continuing to run their anti competitive monopoly. Sorry for the shitty written comment, its early and i just wanted to post my 2 cents...

@christheother9088 9 жыл бұрын

No, not shitty at all - actually an EXCELLENT comment. Much better than the actual video.

@Roxor128 9 жыл бұрын

Just a thought: Could you use Bittorrent for streaming instead of needing to build your own big capacity networks? Once one person has some of the film, they can distribute the data for the parts they have to, say, 4 people (I'm assuming they have a 10Mbit/s upload speed and the video file uses 2.5Mbit/s), and they can distribute to 4 more, and so on, resulting in your server just acting as a backup source for when nobody else has the file a user wants to watch.

@nosuchthing8 9 жыл бұрын

A more interesting video would be "Comcast versus Netflix: Modern day mafia or not?"

@gummipalle 9 жыл бұрын

It also leaves them free to adjust prices upward for other reasons than traffic levels, right? -Like say their sister-company is in competetion with yours, they'll raise prises for traffic to your site.... -Or they disagree with your agenda in some fashion... Higher prises for you... Imagine if the post office raised the price of delivery to your adress, because you happened to recieve more mail than others... If the snail-mail postal service could go 100 years without adress or traffic discrimination, I think net-providers can too... Its not like bandwidth hasnt been going up and up adn up since day 1... The companies are doing fine, and have been for 20+ years!

@tjeulink 9 жыл бұрын

+David n no thats not how it works, open markets can be an excellent ground for monopolies by just being brutal to competition in any way. an example for this is how the big cable and internet providers in the usa made deals with each other to not come in their territory. or dealing drugs on the street is an open market, yet there are huge monopolies there.

@kd1s 9 жыл бұрын

It finally hit me - the argument of charging more for popular sites is sort of like what National Grid here in the U.S. does with natural gas pricing. The therm factor is nothing but a markup. But they say it's the VALUE of gas. Yeah right.

@jim0_o 9 жыл бұрын

I'm not a fan of this calm and rational "lets share the burden" approach to ISP strong arm tactics (for selling you something they just assumed you wouldn't use to its fullest or even "halfest") This problem started with dishonesty on the part of the ISP and if that was admitted (by changing Broadband pricing plans and their description) then we would have a point to work from. Dealing with the dog you bought that bites you by asking it to gnaw on your non-dominant hand instead isn't the solution. But it was a good explanation of the technical problems, behind the dishonest tactics.

@he1986 9 жыл бұрын

Ref: the title: What does all this make-up & traffic of the internet have to do with net neutrality? You never mentioned the word once.

@KLIM4TIK 9 жыл бұрын

If the service originates from different places to eliminate traffic across multiple networks, how do they add movies to the service? Mail physical data to the other areas?

@kaliLeto 9 жыл бұрын

They send data through the internet, but it only gets sent once, it gets stored on a new location and then gets served from there. This way data passes "across multiple networks" hypothetically only once, instead of every time a user requests a video. This is a simplification, as smaller locations don't usually hold (cache) all the movies, but usually just the popular ones (the cached selection keeps changing), but it still greatly reduces inter-network traffic.

@AndyPayne42 9 жыл бұрын

What we need is a more distributed system where the source of information traffic control (call them routers) are provided by users of the system not centralized service providers. I am trying to do this w radio (GNUradio) but this could be extrapolated to wired connections too, message me if you want to work on this

@nosuchthing8 9 жыл бұрын

It would be nice if this video spent more than a minute discussing net neutrality.

@abcvideoyoutuization 9 жыл бұрын

If Net Neutrality is gone, which of all those links will be charging more money? Which one of those connection would be Comcast?

@andljoy 9 жыл бұрын

Interesting but nothing to do with net neutrality( at least not as a concept) , the concept of net neutrality is stopping ISPs charging customs ( as it you and me) more for certain types of data. netfilm or whoever it is having to pay for her bandwidth is totally fine as long as they don't say what that bandwidth can be used for. The problem with getting rid of net neutrality is like your water company saying ok its costs 1pence for 1l of water if your having a shower but if your cleaning your car that £5. its still 1l of water no it should not matter what you do with it as long as you pay for it, that's the problem. All data packets should be equal no matter what they are ( in fact ISPs should not even be able to look at the content) 1 packet with some data that is part of a Christmas card to your nan should be treated no different than a packet to stream from netflix or from youtube its just data of the same size it is a string of 1s and 0s it does not matter. Wanting to charge more for certain types of data is just ISPs being greedy. The cost of sending a packet does not change depending on what's in it no matter what you want us to think ISPs. Anyone who thinks getting rid of net neutrality is a good is ether an ISP or an idiot or someone who has been paid by the ISPs.

@cgdermot 9 жыл бұрын

ISP's can try but if there is a cost past on to the user, they'll just move to another service. Negating the entire contrived process( and I think they will). Ports and Protocols etc make little difference, Pandora's box was opened long ago.

@TiagoTiagoT 6 жыл бұрын

In the US, most places only got a single ISP because the ISPs made deals with the local governments to get a monopoly.

@hhill5489 4 жыл бұрын

I think there is a reason they titled this Techniques of Net Neutrality and not A Bird's Eye View of Net Neutrality. People need to chill

@tonyp9179 9 жыл бұрын

What is the conclusion?

@RussFling 9 жыл бұрын

This video helped me understand somewhat better the "technicalities" of net neutrality and why we need it. It seems to me that ISPs are trying to gouge companies like Netflix and KZfaq because they can't work new contracts with 2nd tier providers due to the rapid the influx of bandwidth demand. Netflix payed for its bandwidth to the 2nd tier and it should be strong armed into paying the 1st tier ISPs for the bandwidth it already payed for! To me it is like FedEx charging a customer to deliver a package from Amazon and then FedEx going and charging Amazon for shipping a bunch of packages that customers already payed to be shipped. To me this is extortion...........

@TiagoTiagoT 6 жыл бұрын

It's more than that; it's like the consumer and Amazon both paid for shipping, but now Fedex wants Amazon to pay even more or else they'll lose the package at the bottom of a warehouse for a few weeks, and Fedex got their own online store that gets same-day delivery for free; and there is no other delivery company available to compete because Fedex made deals with the government to get a monopoly in the region.

@Mrjesse451 9 жыл бұрын

Im sorry, 99.95 of the time your videos are amazing but honestly I am more confused about net neutrality than before I started watching lol/

@jasonmskidmore 6 жыл бұрын

Video ended prior to having any explanation of how Net Neutrality impacts this flow of information/money.

@dijjit 9 жыл бұрын

Ahh, what about how Netflix uses 3+ CDNs to serve a single video to a single customer!? I would've loved to hear why they chose this model and how this was affected by net neutrality.

@yossi1491 9 жыл бұрын

Yea, imo there's no such thing as Net Neutrality anymore. Last week, traffic to a website I own dropped 97% because Google decided it should be so; doesn't sound very neutral to me.

@smegskull 9 жыл бұрын

are there pricing arrangements for failed packets? Is there any way of tracking where data loss/corruption occurred in failed data packets? I try watching youtube on my phone at lunch for example and when traffic gets bad videos do not load as the data rate is so slow that packet downloads timeout however as far as I am aware I still get charged for this data which seems wrong somehow. If the postman came round and said "sorry we lost your package but here is the bill for customs import anyway" you would be pretty pissed.

@argh523 9 жыл бұрын

Using your analogy, it's more like someone sent you a thousand packages that all contain a piece of a lego set, but not all of them get through. You can't assemble the lego set, but the packages that went through still need to be payed for. ISP have no way of telling what constitutes a complete transmission. In principle, everything is just a string of jibbrish with a sender and a reciever address. If packets get dropped along the way, earlier links in the chain wouldn't know that, and if your connection is just to slow for whatever it is that you're doing, that's not exactly their fault either (of course there is an argument if it's always slow and not as advertised etc, but there are a billion reasons why a specific service might not work, and it rearly has to do with the ISP)

@smegskull 9 жыл бұрын

argh523 absolutely fair. I do not expect all packets to get through and I do think ISP should be held responsible for their saturated network and the user should be charged for packets received rather than packets sent. I was just trying to find out if their is an easy way to measure this and the ISPs are exploiting the difference or it is genuinely difficult to check and the ISPs are making a best guess measurement.

@RG-jv2nv 9 жыл бұрын

This is much more balanced and objective than the rubbish TekSyndicate churn out.

@fibbooo1123 9 жыл бұрын

Nice job

@joeg7537 9 жыл бұрын

It seems you didn't even bother commenting on net neutrality at all.

@nosuchthing8 9 жыл бұрын

Yup

@richb313 9 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately this discussion completely ignores reality. Yes there are Tier 1 and Tier 2 networks, there are various networks based on ISP's but a very big player that was not discussed was the Backbone. There are operators of transmission services not affiliated with any network but simply provide the fiber-optic cables, switches and routers for very high speed large bandwidth traffic. All networks contract with these Backbone services. Even traffic within a Tier 1 network probably has to go through one or more backbone services. Once traffic goes International there are several operators of Under Sea Fiber Optic transmissions cables that tie into various countries Telephone and Internet services at their shore stations. Just a bit more complicated than described and many operators working at cross purpose to their own customers benefit and that means a lower satisfaction by the end user.

@richardmortier9614 9 жыл бұрын

hm- could you give an example of a "Backbone service"? i'd had the impression at Sprint (which i classed as Tier-1) that they operated all their own network, down to the fibres...

@mrjfward 9 жыл бұрын

Next time make the video content and video title match. This video fails to address or explain or indeed have anything much at all about net neutrality.

@nosuchthing8 9 жыл бұрын

NosajDraw Also note that they brought in some guy that has rarely appeared before or after this one appearance. To talk about everything BUT net neutrality. The artful dodger, this one is.

@mattshannon4856 9 жыл бұрын

Does the ISP own these networks, the cables, or the connections? I'm not really sure what roll the ISP has in this model of the internet. It almost seems that us American voters are completely uninformed about the technical consequences/contributors of Net Neutrality. I like that Dr. Mortier is trying to explain the "technical side", but I can't help but be confused. Is there a video on Networks that would shed more light into this subject?

@jonathanmoore6702 9 жыл бұрын

Maybe I'm being immature but that first fictional streaming service sounds incredibly dodgy.

@nosuchthing8 9 жыл бұрын

Classic Line from Jurassic Park : "Are there going to be DINOSAURS in your dinosaur park"? "Is there going to be a discussion of net neutrality in your net neutrality video?"