by Kirk Harnack



What if Net Neutrality is NOT an FCC issue, but an FTC issue? When I contract with Comcast for 50 Mbps download speed, shouldn't that guarantee extend right to (and including) the edge of Comcast's network? Right to the "peering point" where the service I'm asking for comes into Comcast's network?

Why shouldn't ISPs honor their bandwidth claims all the way to their network peering points, allowing for statistical usage patterns?

Net Neutrality doesn't seem a content or filtering issue, but an issue of a company delivering the bandwidth they sell you, right to the edge of the network they control. Now, if Netflix (or whomever) doesn't buy enough bandwidth on the network they're on, well that's their problem. But ISP's networks and peering points must be built and improved to be unrestrictive to the amount of data that an given ISP's customers are requesting at any given moment.

It's not going to happen that every one of Comcast's customers will want to use ALL their purchased bandwidth ALL the time, so networks and peering points don't have to built out for the "worst usage case". But they should have to be built out to handle ALL the data requested, without delay or significant packet drops, by their customers at any given moment.

Think of a fitness club. If every member showed up at the same time there'd be a long line out the door and some members would give up and go away. The club doesn't have to be big enough to accommodate *every* member at the same time, but it should be big enough to accommodate everyone who wants to use it at any given time with minimal waiting or inconvenience.

The FCC is the wrong agency to be forcing some form of Net Neutrality upon ISPs. It's the FTC that should clarify what it means for an ISP to sell someone 50 Mbps of download speed. Is that 50 Mbps only if I want to connect to another Comcast customer or service? Or is that 50 Mbps THOUGH Comcast's network and fully available at the peering point with another network. Note, that since the customer didn't contract with any other network, those others that connect at peering points aren't obligated to honor *my* requested bandwidth, but they should be required to honor the contractual bandwidth of *their* customers, right through the point of connecting with other ISPs and backbones at peering points.
===========================================
While I have always been a "less government is better" type, there seems to be no accountability by any of the telecomms. I'd like to see that change. I think they've just about worn out their welcomes.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 04-26-2014).]

FTC would bother because most ISP Contracts and even advertising says Actual Speed maybe different from advertisement.
Like many DSL users see low speed because too far from CO.

How do you point fingers when Inet is slow? To access most site/services your connection goes thru 2-3 peer points, often more.
Local ISP and Peering point can be fast as hell but a server/service can still be slow because of many things, including the server itself limits transfer speed to any one client. A slow service is better then a service that times out to get a connection. Even MS Update services limit DL speeds so more people can access the service. MS spends Many Millions of $ just for Update service.
Level3 and others can and will throttle any connection using undersea fiber because these connections have fix amount of bandwidth. Even uses land base fiber, many have same bandwidth limits.

Is why Google Gig speeds are a joke. Local ISP doesn't matter when Backbones and Peers are stuffed. Faster back-end can take years to build and even then you still will see services limit speeds.

------------------
Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.
(Jurassic Park)

The Ogre's Fiero Cave (It's also at the top and bottom of every forum page...)

I agree with you that your ISP should have to honor what they sell. Mine sells 50 Mbps but it serves a small area. When tested I regularly get 20 Mbps maximum as the ping sites are always outside my ISP. Whether new government oversight is the answer is a tough question. I'm betting the marketplace will punish those who consistently fail their customers. (Assuming you have a choice with ISPs and are not subject to a government approved monopoly)

http://www.aol.com/article/...lnk3%26pLid%3D525464

Its a lost cause anyway, the ones with more money will win. And that is NOT the general public. That and once they start restricting all content at the federal government level ( that's train has already left the station and is steaming full speed ahead )

it was fun while it lasted.

quote Originally posted by theogre: FTC would bother because most ISP Contracts and even advertising says Actual Speed maybe different from advertisement. Like many DSL users see low speed because too far from CO. How do you point fingers when Inet is slow? To access most site/services your connection goes thru 2-3 peer points, often more. Local ISP and Peering point can be fast as hell but a server/service can still be slow because of many things, including the server itself limits transfer speed to any one client. A slow service is better then a service that times out to get a connection. Even MS Update services limit DL speeds so more people can access the service. MS spends Many Millions of $ just for Update service. Level3 and others can and will throttle any connection using undersea fiber because these connections have fix amount of bandwidth. Even uses land base fiber, many have same bandwidth limits. Is why Google Gig speeds are a joke. Local ISP doesn't matter when Backbones and Peers are stuffed. Faster back-end can take years to build and even then you still will see services limit speeds.

True, but if you have a house full of power users(like mine) that's online gaming, video streaming(Netflix and Hulu have been known to be streaming in HD simultaneously) and hoarding Tumblr(those gifsets are freaking bandwidth hogs), that 1Gbps looks really nice. Just because I can't get 1Gbps from any 1 source doesn't mean I can bond 5, 6, or even 10 or 20 sources to get to a total of 1Gbps. We pay for 45/5 service from ATT Uverse and by and large we actually get it, and a lot of the times Speedtest.net measures us at 47-48 download speeds from peers across the country outside of ATT's network and there are some times that doesn't seem like enough.

It really is a pet peeve of mine when it's automatically assumed that people are only going to be accessing 1 website at a time and "you're not going to get that connection speed from that 1 server". NO, but connections to multiple connections to multiple different high-bandwidth servers can be cause for upgrading beyond what's currently offered.