| |
to ITALIAN926
Re: Cant always applyThis was dealt with further up the page. A 200 foot wide house is a whole pile of ridiculous that isn't going to be taken seriously as a defense of ISP inaction on this. |
|
| |
to morbo
Re: CongestionI wish more content providers would start these kind of battles, it will finally give the carriers something to fear. |
|
pumpkinhead7
1 recommendation |
to Flyonthewall
Re: Cant always applyThats because facebook doesnt rely on a consistent high speed stream of data, it runs in spurts and small ones at that. The ISP's that are also TV providers have everything to fear from internet based video services. They will do whatever it takes to protect that cash cow. |
|
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
to Skippy25
Re: So have they signed an agreement or not?said by Skippy25:Because double dipping is exactly what it is. For an ISP that pretty much only request bits, it is the way their connections are sold to consumers, that is the way it still is and ALWAYS will be. Completely irrelevant how the other side of a network is sold when you're talking about peering. |
|
| openbox9 |
to jmn1207
said by jmn1207:In one comment, you claim this is business as usual and it has always worked the way it does now with Comcast. Then you state in another that historically the middle men have agreed to exchange bits at no cost. I think you're twisting my position. Paid peering has existed for quite some time. Mutually beneficial, settlement-free peering has existed since the birth of the Internet. The tide is shifting away from free to paid. said by jmn1207:In the UK, and many other places throughout the world, if an ISP sees increased congestion, they use the money they collect from their paying customers to remedy the issue. And that happens in the US as well. said by jmn1207:Your position in this matter That's not my position, but I can just as easily say your position is that Netflix and the transit and CDN providers are completely innocent in this whole debate and that a handful of ISPs are evil and can never be trusted, nor will they ever be right. |
|
| openbox9 |
to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:You are right it is not a Netfix problem. It is a problem for the ISP to fix by upgrading their network or making their subscribers use less data. Nice try at taking my statement of out context. It's a problem between Netflix's service providers and other networks. Netflix's problem is that it needs to hold its service providers accountable. It doesn't appear to be doing that. |
|
| openbox9 |
to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:It has already changed by the ISPs extorting money out of a content provider. So your hypothetical "staying the same" is already invalid. Not at all. There was no extortion. Netflix willingly worked agreements with other ISPs because its existing service providers appeared unwilling/unable to deliver the services they said they could. |
|
 jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA |
to openbox9
said by openbox9:That's not my position, but I can just as easily say your position is that Netflix and the transit and CDN providers are completely innocent in this whole debate and that a handful of ISPs are evil and can never be trusted, nor will they ever be right. Fair enough. I agree that Netflix and the tier 1 providers are basically no different than Comcast and Verizon and are just as capable of spin and deception for the purpose of making an extra dime. I wouldn't have a problem with a fair negotiation between 2 companies looking to improve their businesses, but this situation has one party holding all the chips. The exchange of money is not really an agreement, but more of an ultimatum. I don't like that at all. |
|
| |
to openbox9
Netflix's providers have absolutely no problem bringing all their data and then some to the door of the ISP's. However, they can't force the ISPs to open their doors to let the data in.
I guess that shows it is the ISP's fault still.
Keep spinning. It makes it no less true. |
|
| Skippy25 |
to openbox9
I didnt take it out of context, I simply stated the facts based on your statement.
Netflix does hold them accountable and they are doing 100% what Netflix needs them to do and what they are capable of doing.
Unfortunately Netflix's providers have ran into the trolls under the bridge that just won't let them by. |
|
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
to jmn1207
said by jmn1207:Fair enough. I agree that Netflix and the tier 1 providers are basically no different than Comcast and Verizon and are just as capable of spin and deception for the purpose of making an extra dime. Thank you. That's really my biggest issue by far with this whole debate. A vast majority of people imply, or outright state, that this is only the fault of Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T and that Netflix and its service providers are merely innocent victims. This isn't black and white and the truth is somewhere in the middle. |
|
| openbox9 |
to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:I didnt take it out of context, I simply stated the facts based on your statement. Since you used my words to make your point, not mine, they were taken out of context. said by Skippy25:Netflix does hold them accountable and they are doing 100% what Netflix needs them to do and what they are capable of doing. Really? Then why is any of this happening? |
|
| openbox9 |
to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:Netflix's providers have absolutely no problem bringing all their data and then some to the door of the ISP's. Transit providers are responsible for accepting, and delivering, bits. |
|
| |
to Probitas
Re: Cant always apply200 feet, thick walls, interference from neighbors, WHO CARES, amazing how many people missed the point. |
|
| |
to openbox9
Re: So have they signed an agreement or not?So stop saying things that help make my point.
It is happening, as it has been said dozens of times, because the ISPs are choosing to cause the problem so they can extort money out of Netflix.
You can argue with me and the rest of the world trying to turn this on Netflix and their providers until you are blue in the face but that wont make it anymore true.
Maybe while making your silly argument you can explain to me and the other 99% of the people here that disagree with you why this is only happening to 6 ISPs in the entire world and all 6 of them are quite large and dominate. Are you telling us the small ISPs are better able to manage their networks and better able to accommodate their users traffic then the big boys? |
|
| Skippy25 |
to openbox9
So answer this for me.......
My company has 28,000+ users and we have firewalls in 3 places throughout the country. We use Verizon to connect to the internet and provide internet services. The World Cup has started and our internet access has grown to a crawl because as a result of everyone streaming it 2 of the 3 locations in the country that we are connected to the internet with have become saturated and speeds are horrible and buffering is happening. Our CTO and executive board is "hip" so they want to allow us to watch the World Cup and to avoid this in the future.
Who should pay to upgrade those links?
A.) My Company
B.) Company contracted to stream the World Cup
C.) Verizon |
|
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
to Skippy25
There really is nothing to argue. The connection issue is between the networks with the interconnection. Netflix has service agreements with a few of those network operators. Netflix should lean on those network operators which in turn should lean on networks they peer with. The issue isn't between Netflix and those "six ISPs". At least it wasn't until Netflix made it so by going around its service providers and dealing with other providers. |
|
| openbox9 |
to Skippy25
What is your agreement with Verizon? |
|
|
1 edit |
Duplication |
|
| Skippy25 |
to openbox9
Our agreement is that they provide a one gig port at each location. Those ports are now saturated so who pays to upgrade? |
|
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2014-Jun-13 12:47 am
Assuming you contracted for service at 1 Gbps of throughput with Verizon and you're maxing that connection and require additional bandwidth, I'm sure you'd pay to increase capacity. Why? |
|
| |
Why? Because you just made my case for me.
In my story my company is Comcast and the 28k+ users are their subscribers, my firewalls are their POPs. Verizon is Cogent (or any other backbone provider) and the company streaming is Netflix.
So in this case you say my company (Comcast) is responsible, but in the Netflix case you want to claim the company who is streaming the service that my users are requesting is responsible.
I swore this morning I wasnt posting another thing about this, but I have to at least answer this one and will post no more. |
|
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2014-Jun-13 11:00 am
Not at all. Are you peering or access to the Internet? There is a difference. For the record, Netflix is responsible for pushing the bits to transit/CDN providers. Those transit/CDN providers are responsible to pushing to Comcast. |
|
2 recommendations |
Yes, completely and I thank you for it. Keep wiggling though, it is fun to see. Netflix and their providers don't push a single thing to Comcast. They deliver the bits that Comcast customers request just like this website, just like Spotify, just like any other web service.
Peering to get internet access or peering to be a backbone provider is different. I will give you that, but either way they are both peering and ISPs do not get free peering EVER. PERIOD. They sell their connections with the entire purpose of receiving a lot more traffic than sending and thus bring nothing to the table that would make any backbone provider in the world want to peer settlement free with them. You start an ISP right now and the first thing you will need to do is find backbone providers for YOU TO PAY so that you can participate on the internet.
Comcast is an ISP first and foremost. They just so happen to be so large that they can provide "some" backbone services in their limited footprint. Regardless a lot of the traffic that enters their network enters it at the request of their ISP subscribers and that is the problem with your argument.
You and Comcast are trying to lump the ISP traffic in with "peering traffic" and are claiming it is out of balance because Comcast's ISP traffic has grown so much that it has thrown things out of balance. Well of course it is out of balance, you sell 50mb dwn / 10mb up connections and use your TOS to prevent your subscribers from providing services to make the traffic flow the other way. |
|
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2014-Jun-13 7:40 pm
said by Skippy25:Peering to get internet access or peering to be a backbone provider is different. Interconnecting two or more networks is, interconnecting two or more networks. said by Skippy25:ISPs do not get free peering EVER. Really? Then what is all of this about? Bits are bits. Networks are networks. Different operators will operate their networks differently and have different expectations and requirements. Interconnecting networks is interconnecting networks and the different parties will need to find a mutually satisfactory middle ground. No matter how you try to spin it, that wasn't happening. Netflix got impatient with its current providers and decided to cut out the middlemen and go straight to Comcast and Verizon. |
|
jjeffeoryjjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN |
said by openbox9:Interconnecting two or more networks is, interconnecting two or more networks. Well in reality, yes; but not when you take into account the marketing departments of the major ISPs apparently. |
|
|
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2014-Jun-13 9:38 pm
Or any network operator. |
|
jjeffeoryjjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN |
True. Spin is everything. It changes reality for so many. |
|
