Net Neutrality

mr_goo

Now that the US Net Neutrality law has been abolished. Is anyone concerned that the big telecommunications companies over here may push for the same thing.

Flâneur

Not at the moment, US networks had a very different starting point to ours I would argue. Throw in that I am not sure anyone in parliment would give their time to listen right now.

Having said that, ask me again in 3 years time and I wouldn't be so confident that they haven't started lobbying.

mr_goo

Flâneur wrote:

Not at the moment, US networks had a very different starting point to ours I would argue. Throw in that I am not sure anyone in parliment would give their time to listen right now.

Having said that, ask me again in 3 years time and I wouldn't be so confident that they haven't started lobbying.

Exactly my thoughts. Get Brexit out the way and all the telecommunications regulations will be up for review. As with the unnecessary HS2 or NHS privatisations there will be MPs who will be susceptible to or have vested interests in telecoms.

TheBigBean

Apparently the market is much more competitive here, so it is much less of a concern. No expertise on the subject though.

Flâneur

A blog post prior to the vote should anyone want some back round.
https://medium.com/jeremy-keeshin/whats ... 2251e06fdc

Ben6899

Mr Goo wrote:

...As with the unnecessary HS2...

That would make a good thread.

What makes it unnecessary in your opinion, Goo? Genuinely interested, not looking for an argument.

tangled_metal

It goes to the north perhaps?

capt_slog

Ben6899 wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

...As with the unnecessary HS2...

That would make a good thread.

What makes it unnecessary in your opinion, Goo? Genuinely interested, not looking for an argument.

Yes, it would make a good thread.

As someone who lives near to the East Midlands Hub, it's difficult to see any benefit in terms of travel when set against the impact it will have on the landscape and people.

kingstongraham

Capt Slog wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

...As with the unnecessary HS2...

That would make a good thread.

What makes it unnecessary in your opinion, Goo? Genuinely interested, not looking for an argument.

Yes, it would make a good thread.

As someone who lives near to the East Midlands Hub, it's difficult to see any benefit in terms of travel when set against the impact it will have on the landscape and people.

It will allow even more people to commute to London.

mr_goo

Ben6899 wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

...As with the unnecessary HS2...

That would make a good thread.

What makes it unnecessary in your opinion, Goo? Genuinely interested, not looking for an argument.

Firstly I'm really not sure that spending £65bn (current cost) of taxpayers money on a train line that will get from London to Manchester 15 minutes quicker than the current service is value for money.
Secondly the rolling stock is still essentially based on a Victorian technology of using metal wheels on metal track.

If HS2, 3 and 4 was going to be a Maglev or other new cutting edge system then I would be all for it.

rjsterry

Mr Goo wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

...As with the unnecessary HS2...

That would make a good thread.

What makes it unnecessary in your opinion, Goo? Genuinely interested, not looking for an argument.

Firstly I'm really not sure that spending £65bn (current cost) of taxpayers money on a train line that will get from London to Manchester 15 minutes quicker than the current service is value for money.
Secondly the rolling stock is still essentially based on a Victorian technology of using metal wheels on metal track.

If HS2, 3 and 4 was going to be a Maglev or other new cutting edge system then I would be all for it.

Steel wheels on steel rails are actually pretty good. Maglevs are eye-wateringly expensive. If your concern is the cost of HS2, then maglevs are not the answer.

kingstongraham

And this is why net neutrality doesn't get a lot of coverage.

veronese68

KingstonGraham wrote:

And this is why net neutrality doesn't get a lot of coverage.

Indeed, friends of mine that work in the area say it is a really big deal and important that people pay attention. But to most people, myself included to a degree, it's something that happens in the background and they aren't interested enough to get worked up about it. But will all complain when it's too late.

Flâneur

who doesn't love paying for a base system then paying for each bolt on such as browsing the web, using an app on your phone, netflix, that'ss a different cost to iplayer etc etc

orraloon

Yebbut. I give you Netflix. $3bn revenues last quarter, added another 5m subscribers. And how much do they pay for their delivery mechanism? Hmmm, they seem very quiet on that subject.

pblakeney

I admit to not knowing much about the subject but would it be a good time to start researching the dark web? Operating under the radar should be operating without costs. Illegal probably, but so is Kodi and I've heard a lot of people use that.
Just pondering since the issue has been highlighted...

pinno

rjsterry wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

...As with the unnecessary HS2...

That would make a good thread.

What makes it unnecessary in your opinion, Goo? Genuinely interested, not looking for an argument.

Firstly I'm really not sure that spending £65bn (current cost) of taxpayers money on a train line that will get from London to Manchester 15 minutes quicker than the current service is value for money.
Secondly the rolling stock is still essentially based on a Victorian technology of using metal wheels on metal track.

If HS2, 3 and 4 was going to be a Maglev or other new cutting edge system then I would be all for it.

Steel wheels on steel rails are actually pretty good. Maglevs are eye-wateringly expensive. If your concern is the cost of HS2, then maglevs are not the answer.

Yes, the Nagoya - Tokyo magnetic rail was staggeringly expensive. $51bn for 286km.

..or £176000 per metre.

Seen as the economy is going to slow down after Brexit, perhaps a revamp and an extension of the current canal network would do the trick. All that excavation (with shovels) and building horse drawn barges; think of the employment it will create.

Brickyards
Farriers
Carpenters
Shovel makers
Wheel barrow makers/repairers...

pinno

Of course we'll need some of those foreigners to help do the work...

Matthewfalle

what is net neutrality?

lay man's terms please.

pinno

Matthewfalle wrote:

what is net neutrality?

lay man's terms please.

It's a bit of a sticky wicket: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_law

There's only so much you can do when you are hiding in a cupboard.

sungod

orraloon wrote:

Yebbut. I give you Netflix. $3bn revenues last quarter, added another 5m subscribers. And how much do they pay for their delivery mechanism? Hmmm, they seem very quiet on that subject.

what's the mystery? the notion that content providers are somehow getting a free ride is nonsense

content providers such as netflix pay for the bandwidth at the point their content enters a network they don't own, if they stream at 300 gigabit/sec they need to pay for connectivity supporting that - exactly the same as if you operate a website, the isp will charge for bandwidth, if there's a lot of traffic the bills can get large, fast

very large operators such as netflix may build and operate their own content delivery networks, more common is using a cdn operator - cloudflare, akami etc.

end users pay for the bandwidth to their home/mobile device

every cdn/isp/ixp peer can peer with any other isp/ixp on terms they are free to negotiate pricing based on traffic levels/differentials

net neutrality prevents an isp discriminating against traffic it doesn't like, by charging more, blocking it, or slowing it down

imagine if an isp had it's own voip service, it might block skype etc. to force users onto it's own service, or charge them a premium for using skype for instance, net neutrality prevents this sort of anti-competitive action

Stevo_666

sungod wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Yebbut. I give you Netflix. $3bn revenues last quarter, added another 5m subscribers. And how much do they pay for their delivery mechanism? Hmmm, they seem very quiet on that subject.

what's the mystery? the notion that content providers are somehow getting a free ride is nonsense

content providers such as netflix pay for the bandwidth at the point their content enters a network they don't own, if they stream at 300 gigabit/sec they need to pay for connectivity supporting that - exactly the same as if you operate a website, the isp will charge for bandwidth, if there's a lot of traffic the bills can get large, fast

very large operators such as netflix may build and operate their own content delivery networks, more common is using a cdn operator - cloudflare, akami etc.

end users pay for the bandwidth to their home/mobile device

every cdn/isp/ixp peer can peer with any other isp/ixp on terms they are free to negotiate pricing based on traffic levels/differentials

net neutrality prevents an isp discriminating against traffic it doesn't like, by charging more, blocking it, or slowing it down

imagine if an isp had it's own voip service, it might block skype etc. to force users onto it's own service, or charge them a premium for using skype for instance, net neutrality prevents this sort of anti-competitive action

Useful explanation, thanks SG.

I think Orraloon is assuming that because Netflix is large successful private enterprise, they must be getting a free ride somehow, or at least doing something wrong.

ben@31

Capt Slog wrote:

As someone who lives near to the East Midlands Hub, it's difficult to see any benefit in terms of travel when set against the impact it will have on the landscape and people.

What impact on the landscape? Just how wide is this train track? Theres even railways in the Swiss Alps and it doesn't detract from their scenery.

pinno

ben@31 wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

As someone who lives near to the East Midlands Hub, it's difficult to see any benefit in terms of travel when set against the impact it will have on the landscape and people.

What impact on the landscape? Just how wide is this train track? Theres even railways in the Swiss Alps and it doesn't detract from their scenery.

Bye bye High Wycombe. No heap big loss.

I thought that the downs were quite chalky and easy to put the whole thing underground.

orraloon

Thanks SG. Genuinely didn't know how Netflix and the like worked. And I think I'll just ignore Mr wind up tax dodger.

Stevo_666

orraloon wrote:

Thanks SG. Genuinely didn't know how Netflix and the like worked. And I think I'll just ignore Mr wind up tax dodger.

No wind up. Just taking you to task for talking bollox

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Thanks SG. Genuinely didn't know how Netflix and the like worked. And I think I'll just ignore Mr wind up tax dodger.

No wind up. Just taking you to task for talking bollox

Its good to know you r also an expert on the internet, cdn's pop's and netflix's oca's :roll:
though i m not entirely sure that they are anything to do with NWN, these are just how companies get content quickly and reliably to your home PC etc etc etc without tying up huge amounts of the internet with up-steam traffic, its a multi billion $ business and growing fast, the legacy companies are finding it hard to keep up.

i d also add that this area is highly complex and i would nt pretend to be an expert, no one individual is.

Alex99

This guy does a good tech blog on this subject:
https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutra ... -title-ii/

My basic understanding is that that US gov. basically want market forces to 'go at it' developing the internet. Of course, this does come with some risk, but I'm not sure that it's a terrible idea. I tend to think, either make the internet properly public, or stop telling private parties how they need to run their business (i.e. let ISPs allocate internet performance however they want to).

The caveat is that there MUST be choice for the burgeoning Netflix competitor.

bianchimoon

Mr Goo wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

...As with the unnecessary HS2...

That would make a good thread.

What makes it unnecessary in your opinion, Goo? Genuinely interested, not looking for an argument.

Firstly I'm really not sure that spending £65bn (current cost) of taxpayers money on a train line that will get from London to Manchester 15 minutes quicker than the current service is value for money.
Secondly the rolling stock is still essentially based on a Victorian technology of using metal wheels on metal track.

If HS2, 3 and 4 was going to be a Maglev or other new cutting edge system then I would be all for it.

100% agree with all of this and i'm ooop north.

An alternative to spending ridiculous amounts Just add 15 minutes to the length of the day and start the next day 15 mins early that would make the HS2 15 min quicker argument redundant

Ben6899

You can't really complain about the £65bn cost of HS2 and then say we should be building a Maglev system. Both the CAPEX and OPEX of Maglev are higher than with the 'standard' European 4ft gauge railway.

tangled_metal

Move more jobs up north so that ppl don't need to commute ridiculous distances.

Just an idea and I do not have a clue how to achieve this.