Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Large / medium business, sure. But a household of 4-6 people? Every one of them could be watching their own 4k content while simultaneously downloading isos and video chatting and still couldn't even come close to saturating the link.
To put it in your terms, it is more like your sub shop has a bike delivery person and I have a delivery person. For no additional cost my delivery person will meet your delivery person half way. Occasionally this means that extra time will be taken in order to facilitate the hand off. Now, my delivery person goes to the sub shop and offers, for a fee, to guarantee that they will always deliver the sandwich the whole way in a timely manner.
I am not ignorant. I know there is dirty dealings going on here. But the ISPs do have some valid arguments in this...it is not a one sided argument. Net neutrality does not mean that everyone gets as much bandwidth as they want. It just means that packets and not treated unequally and are subject to the same congestion regardless of type or content. Like I said in my initial post, if they are treating the packets differently that is something I do not agree with but if we are simply talking a peering argument than the ISPs just need to work it out.
This is not a black and white issue...there is some definite grey area here. Should Netflix be able to choose an ISP and expect to be able to provide service to their customers? Yes. Should Verizon provide unlimited asymetric bandwidth to that ISP without receiving compensation from the selected ISP? No. Should the selected ISP be charging that additional cost back to Netflix? I would think so.
The only thing that would change my mind here is whether the big ISPs were specifically limiting Netflix traffic, treating it differently than other traffic across the peering relationship. Otherwise this just becomes an issue of asymmetric peering arguments which happen all the time but have just entered the publics view because of the popularity of Netflix.
|||| Gaming Client PC ||||
|||| Local Windows Box ||||
|||| Internet 1 |||| Internet 2 ||||
|||| Hosted Linux Server ||||
|||| Gaming Server ||||
Local Windows Box acts as a router and duplicates all inbound traffic sending it out box Internet 1 and Internet 2. Hosted Linux Box receives traffic, picks whatever packet arrives first and forwards it and throws away the slower duplicate when it comes it.
It is an interesting idea. As far as I am aware routing protocols only do best route and fail over but I am not aware of any that always sends both routes.
Like I said, I think it is a good thing but that doesn't mean it won't fall to the lawyers.