net neutrality vote, could this affect ip camera remote viewing ?

[GKL]

I just now happened to come across this info about "net neutrality" and I am not very familiar with it, could the vote they are planning have a serious affect on remote ip camera viewing as well as the internet in general ?

Here is the link I found advertised on the Startpage search engine -

Comcast wants to control what you do online. Do you want to let them?

Saw that beneath the search box on this search engine -

StartPage Web Search

 

[bp2008]

In short, yes. Without net neutrality, internet providers could block or throttle or charge extra for access to specific resources however they want.

Net Neutrality: What You Need to Know Now

 

[GKL]

In short, yes. Without net neutrality, internet providers could block or throttle or charge extra for access to specific resources however they want.

Net Neutrality: What You Need to Know Now

Wow, we definitely would not want extra charges just to view a live camera feed thru our home WIFI, thanks for the reply and info !

 

[mat200]

I work for an ISP, a small one anyways. The biggest problem right now is streaming tv. It kills us. Everybody is replacing their cable tv subscriptions with Netflix etc. Years ago we used to charge business customers more than residential because they used more bandwidth, but now we charge the same price for both because its the evening crowd that floods our entire network with streaming media. This is the part the major ISPs are trying to control. They want to throttle video and charge people extra money to use Netflix since those customers ditched their cable tv service for it. Its a way for them to recoup lost revenue. I would be surprised if they ever did anything to affect security cams. Thats a small niche group that doesnt affect their global network much.

Hi Drunkpenguin,

"They want to throttle video and charge people extra money to use Netflix since those customers ditched their cable tv service for it. Its a way for them to maximize shareholder value and maximize recoup lost revenue. "

There, fixed it for you ;-)

 

[mat200]

I just now happened to come across this info about "net neutrality" and I am not very familiar with it, could the vote they are planning have a serious affect on remote ip camera viewing as well as the internet in general ?

Here is the link I found advertised on the Startpage search engine -

Comcast wants to control what you do online. Do you want to let them?

Saw that beneath the search box on this search engine -

StartPage Web Search

HI GKL,

Yes net neutrality is a serious issue.

Might it affect security cameras? Maybe an issue imho for remote viewing - as that is a constant stream and may look like you're watching Netflix or something else - and the big boys in the ISP world want to play the Cable Company game of getting paid more to allow video streaming across their turf.

 

[bp2008]

I am of the opinion that internet providers need to upgrade their infrastructure if they can't handle peak loads. Instead they want to make it more expensive for customers both as a method of reducing the load and making more money at the same time without upgrading a thing.

 

[GKL]

HI GKL,

Yes net neutrality is a serious issue.

Might it affect security cameras? Maybe an issue imho for remote viewing - as that is a constant stream and may look like you're watching Netflix or something else - and the big boys in the ISP world want to play the Cable Company game of getting paid more to allow video streaming across their turf.

Thanks, I'm new at ip camera stuff, but if you would only very occasionally access a live feed remotely and even then for likely a minute or two at a time, that should not be anywhere as bad as a constant stream (I'm guessing as I'm new at this and assume there is only a stream when actually accessing the feed)

 

[mat200]

Thanks, I'm new at ip camera stuff, but if you would only very occasionally access a live feed remotely and even then for likely a minute or two at a time, that should not be anywhere as bad as a constant stream (I'm guessing as I'm new at this and assume there is only a stream when actually accessing the feed)

Hi GKL,

Depends on what your setup is - in general yes, if you've just viewing remotely periodically note in some cases you maybe using the internet to stream the videos to another location or to the cloud for back.

 

[GKL]

I work for an ISP, a small one anyways. The biggest problem right now is streaming tv. It kills us. Everybody is replacing their cable tv subscriptions with Netflix etc. Years ago we used to charge business customers more than residential because they used more bandwidth, but now we charge the same price for both because its the evening crowd that floods our entire network with streaming media. This is the part the major ISPs are trying to control. They want to throttle video and charge people extra money to use Netflix since those customers ditched their cable tv service for it. Its a way for them to recoup lost revenue. I would be surprised if they ever did anything to affect security cams. Thats a small niche group that doesnt affect their global network much.

Thanks, its good to hear the perspective you can offer from working for an ISP.

Do you think a better option might be for the ISP to charge a fee to Netflix directly, then even if Netflix raises it's rates to it's customers to cover that, at least then it only affects Netflix subscribers and not the ISP subscribers who don't use Netflix.

We live in a small town with limited options as compared to a big city, we would have considered using just an antenna for tv reception, but we use the basic cable tv service because we didn't have any option not to use it because the local cable company does not offer cable internet service by itself, you have to also at least get the basic cable tv in order to get the cable internet.

I'm not sure but I think one possibility maybe why they don't offer internet by itself is maybe because the basic tv will come thru anyway ?

We don't get a cable box with the basic tv, but years ago the cable person told me that even though we were paying for just the basic channels, that some other channels would still come thru because it would cost them money for devices to filter them out, he just said that the extra channels we got can be considered as a free bonus and were okay to use, we just obviously could not expect support if there was a problem with any of the free channels.

I don't know if ROKU is as bad as using Netflix, we have a ROKU and mostly use the "Plex" app, the Plex comes in handy when there are shows you don't have time to watch live when they are aired, and don't want to be bothered always having to remember to set up a dvr recorder. What I will do is just download the episodes we couldn't watch live and then stream them from the computer to our tv thru the Plex app on the Roku when we have time to watch them, isn't that just a local stream that should not affect using the cable bandwidth ?

 

[mat200]

Thanks, its good to hear the perspective you can offer from working for an ISP.

Do you think a better option might be for the ISP to charge a fee to Netflix directly, then even if Netflix raises it's rates to it's customers to cover that, at least then it only affects Netflix subscribers and not the ISP subscribers who don't use Netflix.
..

Hi GKL,

Probably a better idea to have ISPs partner with Netflix to provide a content delivery node closer to the end customer - this will allow content which is more popular to be faster for the customer to obtain, as well as reduce bandwidth used by the edge ISPs. Certainly a reasonable partnership should be possible.

 

[NoloC]

Complicated issue but it does seem Netflix has a business model that relies on the ISPs to deliver their product without reimbursing the ISPs.
Nice work if you can get it. I read something upwords 85% of all traffic is streaming video now. Calling it "Net Neutrality" seems disingenuous as well.
Netflix is asking someone else to support their business through clever lobbying and trying to make it appeal to SJW crowd with the name.

Maybe I am missing something?

 

[GKL]

Hi GKL,

Probably a better idea to have ISPs partner with Netflix to provide a content delivery node closer to the end customer - this will allow content which is more popular to be faster for the customer to obtain, as well as reduce bandwidth used by the edge ISPs. Certainly a reasonable partnership should be possible.

Neat idea, anything that can both keep costs reasonable and reduce bandwidth sounds good !

 

[GKL]

Complicated issue but it does seem Netflix has a business model that relies on the ISPs to deliver their product without reimbursing the ISPs.
Nice work if you can get it. I read something upwords 85% of all traffic is streaming video now. Calling it "Net Neutrality" seems disingenuous as well.
Netflix is asking someone else to support their business through clever lobbying and trying to make it appeal to SJW crowd with the name.

Maybe I am missing something?

Interesting, I'm still learning about this stuff, but the ISPs Netflix uses does not charge Netflix for what they upload to the customer or are all the costs go to the download (streaming) to the customer ? (I might not be understanding this correctly)

 

[NoloC]

Stunning thoughts! How could we live without Facebook Fox News and Porn?

 

[bp2008]

Do you think a better option might be for the ISP to charge a fee to Netflix directly, then even if Netflix raises it's rates to it's customers to cover that, at least then it only affects Netflix subscribers and not the ISP subscribers who don't use Netflix.

It is a very complicated situation, but no, ISPs should not have the power to charge anyone for specific kinds of internet traffic. Netflix and other video streaming services just happen to be an easy target for greedy network providers to focus on. As @drunkpenguin said, it is a slippery slope. If they start getting extra money for Netflix traffic (no matter where the money comes from) they won't stop there. Next up will be YouTube (and other Google services), Apple, Facebook, Vimeo, Amazon.com, and everyone else they can identify as being associated with a significant amount of network traffic. Eventually internet providers would have systems and precedents in place to charge you extra for unthrottled connections between your cell phone and your home IP address to view your cameras.

I don't know if ROKU is as bad as using Netflix, we have a ROKU and mostly use the "Plex" app, the Plex comes in handy when there are shows you don't have time to watch live when they are aired, and don't want to be bothered always having to remember to set up a dvr recorder. What I will do is just download the episodes we couldn't watch live and then stream them from the computer to our tv thru the Plex app on the Roku when we have time to watch them, isn't that just a local stream that should not affect using the cable bandwidth ?

Roku is just a device that can stream from many different services, Netflix being one of them. I'm not sure if Roku has their own streaming service, but if they do, then it surely uses a similar amount of data per hour compared to Netflix.

Plex is a service you host yourself so typical Plex traffic doesn't touch your ISP while you watch it. However, if you download the video from the internet in the first place (as opposed to ripping a Blu Ray disk or something), then it is basically the same as streaming the content once (possibly during non-peak hours).

 

[GKL]

It is a very complicated situation, but no, ISPs should not have the power to charge anyone for specific kinds of internet traffic. Netflix and other video streaming services just happen to be an easy target for greedy network providers to focus on. As @drunkpenguin said, it is a slippery slope. If they start getting extra money for Netflix traffic (no matter where the money comes from) they won't stop there. Next up will be YouTube (and other Google services), Apple, Facebook, Vimeo, Amazon.com, and everyone else they can identify as being associated with a significant amount of network traffic. Eventually internet providers would have systems and precedents in place to charge you extra for unthrottled connections between your cell phone and your home IP address to view your cameras.

You have a valid point, often once the door is opened it doesn't stop at only what was initially intended.

Roku is just a device that can stream from many different services, Netflix being one of them. I'm not sure if Roku has their own streaming service, but if they do, then it surely uses a similar amount of data per hour compared to Netflix.

Plex is a service you host yourself so typical Plex traffic doesn't touch your ISP while you watch it. However, if you download the video from the internet in the first place (as opposed to ripping a Blu Ray disk or something), then it is basically the same as streaming the content once (possibly during non-peak hours).

Also, not sure if it makes a big difference, but the download is usually less than about 3 minutes as opposed to if you streamed it live in real time for close to an hour.

 

[weigle2]

Also, not sure if it makes a big difference, but the download is usually less than about 3 minutes as opposed to if you streamed it live in real time for close to an hour.

Think about it. You say the download takes usually less than about 3 minutes, but it still takes you close to an hour to watch it. It's the same amount of data. The download takes less time because it's one large file. Streaming it over about an hour is just slowing down the download, so you can watch it.

 

[GKL]

Think about it. You say the download takes usually less than about 3 minutes, but it still takes you close to an hour to watch it. It's the same amount of data. The download takes less time because it's one large file. Streaming it over about an hour is just slowing down the download, so you can watch it.

Very good point, maybe if it could be compressed to download then uncompressed after download, but I'm not sure if video could be compressed enough to make enough of a difference.

 

[bp2008]

Also, not sure if it makes a big difference, but the download is usually less than about 3 minutes as opposed to if you streamed it live in real time for close to an hour.

Sure, you can download an hour of video in 3 minutes if you have a fast enough connection and the ISP's network isn't oversaturated at the moment. The problem is that internet providers oversell their product like crazy and often don't have enough network capacity to handle peak demand. Just as an example, there might be a 1000 Mbps feed serving 1000 homes and providing them all with 100 Mbps download speed. But if every customer tries to download stuff at the same time, they will each only get about 1 Mbps which isn't enough to stream good HD video in real time. Ideally everyone's video downloads would be spread throughout the day and night and there would be no problem. But the way modern streaming works, the downloading happens in little chunks just seconds or at best minutes before the video is watched, so it happens all at once in the evenings.

Very good point, maybe if it could be compressed to download then uncompressed after download, but I'm not sure if video could be compressed enough to make enough of a difference.

Every video you watch online is already compressed. It could be compressed further, but only with significant quality loss to achieve significant file size reduction. If you tried to use "lossless compression" on a video file, you would only end up with a zip file that is slightly bigger than the original video.

 

[GKL]

Sure, you can download an hour of video in 3 minutes if you have a fast enough connection and the ISP's network isn't oversaturated at the moment. The problem is that internet providers oversell their product like crazy and often don't have enough network capacity to handle peak demand. Just as an example, there might be a 1000 Mbps feed serving 1000 homes and providing them all with 100 Mbps download speed. But if every customer tries to download stuff at the same time, they will each only get about 1 Mbps which isn't enough to stream good HD video in real time. Ideally everyone's video downloads would be spread throughout the day and night and there would be no problem. But the way modern streaming works, the downloading happens in little chunks just seconds or at best minutes before the video is watched, so it happens all at once in the evenings.

Every video you watch online is already compressed. It could be compressed further, but only with significant quality loss to achieve significant file size reduction. If you tried to use "lossless compression" on a video file, you would only end up with a zip file that is slightly bigger than the original video.

That's what I was thinking, that it further compression would not be a viable option, but I wasn't sure.