1 recommendation |
to MyDogHsFleas
Re: Comcast: Pay Up!Thanks for pointing out my ignorance. I was under the impression that the significant fees I pay Comcast is for unfettered access to the Internet. I guess I missed the disclaimer in their ads that Comcast Internet access is conditional. Now I see the error of my ways and that ISPs have a right to be the gatekeeper to the Internet and decide which Internet services I am allowed to access without interference. Thanks for clearing that up! |
|
10 recommendations |
You're welcome. Here's some more pointing out: the price you pay Comcast is for unfettered access to Comcast's network. And you get that. You are incorrect that Comcast is gatekeeping or interfering in your access to other Internet services. They do not do this.
However, all ISPs do peering agreements so that traffic can flow between them. These agreements can be mutual/no money paid, or if one side is not providing as much value as the other across the link, money is used to make up the difference. There is nothing new about this. Traffic volume from one peered network to the other costs the other money, and they are not going to give it for free.
All this is is just a peering agreement between Netflix and Comcast so they have direct peering, increasing performance, instead of an indirect peering setup. Netflix probably paid Comcast for this. So they get better performance for their Comcast connected customers.
Nothing evil or new is going on. It's just business. You should be happy about it, as Netflix is now providing better service to you.
Instead, you are *assuming* that Comcast is evil and Netflix is good, and somehow the evil Comcast is extorting money from Netflix by somehow doing something in their network to interfere with your Netflix access. This is manifestly untrue. Thus my conclusion that you have been spun. Sadly you are not alone. |
|
|
3 recommendations |
"somehow the evil Comcast is extorting money from Netflix"
No one seems to understand how peering works. If you have equal traffic in both directions it's usually settlement free for both parties. When one side is heavily lopsided to the other one side pays the other. I can't see where any real amount of traffic is going to head to Netflix's network so Netflix paying the bulk of the expense is in line with any other peering agreement. |
|
jlivingood Premium Member join:2007-10-28 Philadelphia, PA
2 recommendations |
said by battleop:No one seems to understand how peering works. Quite so. Basically that's what this article says over at » blog.streamingmedia.com/ ··· ong.html (hat tip to AVonGauss for the pointer). |
|
firephotoTruth and reality matters Premium Member join:2003-03-18 Brewster, WA |
firephoto
Premium Member
2014-Feb-23 10:02 pm
Ok, if someone pays for service from comcast, an ISP, which stands for Internet Service Provider, they are in fact not paying for "internet service" as most of the world would define the word "internet"??? Aka no expectation that any user can access any digital bit available "on the internet". ? |
|
mackey Premium Member join:2007-08-20 |
to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas:the price you pay Comcast is for unfettered access to Comcast's network. You are wrong about this. Go read Comcast's internet service page at » www.comcast.com/internet ··· ice.html . They are selling INTERNET access, not "Comcast network access." When they turn around and decide what you can and can't access on the internet they're being gatekeepers. /M |
|
SimbaSevenI Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT ·StarLink
|
said by mackey:They are selling INTERNET access, not "Comcast network access." When they turn around and decide what you can and can't access on the internet they're being gatekeepers. Most people don't understand the difference between intranet and internet. If most servers and services are flowing on Comcast's network, and you're on Comcast's network, it's technically an intranet. |
|
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2 Zoom 5341J
|
to MyDogHsFleas
No. I don't pay an ISP for "access to their network." I'm buying access to the Internet. IE, Sites and services *I want* and *I choose*.
If they can't handle the bandwidth demands then the problem is the ISP's in my eyes, NOT the fault of the site I'm trying to use.
Fail provider is fail. |
|
|
to mackey
They are not selling "unfettered access" to the whole Internet. Access is not the same thing as "unfettered access", by which you mean "access at the same bit rate as the content source is streaming into its end of the connection".
It's not about "what you can and can't access" it's about "what you can access and get the same bit rate as the content source is streaming". Different thing.
You are trying to make Comcast responsible for how fast you can access any site on the Internet. They don't own or control the intervening networks, only their own.
Analogies are bad, but this is like you complaining about your Ferrari because you can't drive it at 120MPH on the street because of traffic, and blaming the Ferrari company for that. What are they supposed to do? |
|
mackey Premium Member join:2007-08-20 |
mackey
Premium Member
2014-Feb-25 1:47 pm
said by MyDogHsFleas:They are not selling "unfettered access" to the whole Internet. Access is not the same thing as "unfettered access" Please show me on that page where they're only selling partial internet access. You may consider a 1 bit/second connection as "access," but to me if a connection is so slow or congested or lossy (packet loss) that it can't be used at all then it is not. When the connection to Netflix is so bad you cannot stream anything then you no longer have access to Netflix. said by MyDogHsFleas:You are trying to make Comcast responsible for how fast you can access any site on the Internet. They don't own or control the intervening networks, only their own. The bottleneck IS Comcast's network, specifically the part which connects to the sources' network (Cogent). The source wants to upgrade the connection point, but Comcast refuses to upgrade their network to support it. A better analogy would be a highway connecting 2 states. The traffic is getting so bad it's bumper to bumper, stop and go almost 24/7, so one state (call them "A") wants to widen the road. It's pointless to widen it if it just narrows again at the state line, so they can't widen it without having the other state ("B") widen their part as well. However "B" is refusing to widen their part unless "A" pays them not only full construction costs but also a fee for every car that uses the road. /M |
|